Skip to main content

Full text of "The pillars of Rome broken : wherein all the several pleas for the Pope's authority in England, ... to which is subjoined a seasonable alarm ..."

See other formats 


Ex  Libris 
C.  K.  OGDEN 


ROMA    RU1T. 


THE 


PILLARS    OF    ROME 

BROKEN: 


WHEREIN 

ALL  THE  SEVERAL   PLEAS    FOR   THE   POPE'S    AUTHORITY  .IN 

ENGLAND,  WITH  ALL  THE  MATERIAL  DEFENCES  OF  THEM, 

AS  THEY  HAVE  BEEN  URGED  BY  ROMANISTS  FROM 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  OUR  REFORMATION  TO  THIS 

DAY,  ARE   REVISED   AND  ANSWERED. 


TO  WHICH  IS  SUBJOINED 

. 

A  SEASONABLE  ALARM 

TO   ALL  SORTS   OF   ENGLISHMEN,   AGAINST  POPERY,  BOTH 
FROM  THEIR   OATHS  AND   THEIR  INTERESTS. 


BY  FR.   FULLWOOD,   D.D., 

ARCHDEACON  OF  TOTNES  IN  DEVON. 

A    NEW   EDITION    REVISED 

BY 

CHARLES    HARDWICK,    M.  A., 

FELLOW  OF  ST.  CATHARINE'S  HALL,  CAMBRIDGE. 


CAMBRIDGE  : 

J.  AND.  J.  J.  DEIGHTON. 

JOHN  W.  PARKER,  WEST  STRAND,  LONDON. 


M.DCCC.XLVII. 


[TOUTO  yap  /cat  (popriKov  xal  ov  rroppo)  TTJS  'lov8a'iKtjs 
VOTTJTOS  TTfpiypd(pfiv  TTJ  'PCO^IT/  TTJV  fKK\T)ariav.  Nilus,  archiep. 
Thessal.  de  Primatu  Papec  Romani,  Lib.  n.  p.  34 ;  ed. 
Salinas.] 


at  tile  Ztnlbcrsltp  Sress. 


object  of  the  following  reprint  is  to  supply 
on   the   subject  of  the   papal  jurisdiction   a 
well-digested  text-book.    Many  persons  who  take  an 
interest  in  that  question,  are  wholly  precluded  from 
historical  investigation  through  their  want  of  the 
necessary  leisure  ;  while  others  by  studying  the  con- 
troversy under  one  single  aspect,  or  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  particular  doubts,  have  frequently  arrived  at 
very  partial  conclusions.     To  both  these  classes  a 
careful  synopsis  of  the  whole  body  of  testimony 
will  not  fail  to  be  of  service  ;  and  such  a  synopsis 
has  been  already  provided  in  this  Treatise  of  Arch- 
deacon Fullwood1.     He  would  have  'the  difference 
clearly  stated,  and  the  arguments  stripped  of  their 
cumber,  and  the  controversy  so  reduced,  that  the 
world  may  perceive  where  we  are  ;  and  that  doubt- 
ful inquirers  after  truth  and  the  safest  religion  may 
satisfy  their  consciences  and  fix  their  practice2.' 

1  The  name  is  written  indifferently  FuKwood  and  FuZwood. 

2  See  Introduction  and  Epistle  Dedicatory. 


2000195 


IV 

On  the  three  qualities  of  comprehension,  per- 
spicuity, and  arrangement,  are  rested  his  chief 
claims  to  consideration ;  nor  can  any  one,  in  ques- 
tions like  the  present,  possess  qualities  more  likely 
to  obtain  it. 

Should  it  appear,  therefore,  that  the  elaborate 
Treatises  of  Jewel,  Rainolds,  Laud,  Morton,  Bram- 
hall,  Twysden,  Hammond,  and  Stillingfleet,  have 
been  faithfully  reduced  and  methodized,  the  Church 
of  England  will  have  cause  to  welcome  the  reap- 
pearance of  this  portion  of  Fullwood's  writings, 
and  to  cherish  anew  the  remembrance  of  one  who 
can  still,  as  in  his  lifetime,  serve  among  the  number 
of  her  champions. 

Very  few  particulars  have  come  down  to  us 
respecting  the  private  history  of  FRANCIS  FULLWOOD. 
His  own  testimony  assures  us  that  he  was  educated 
at  the  Charter-house1.  From  thence  he  was  in  all 
probability  removed  to  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge. His  name  occurs  in  the  Admission-book 
of  Emmanuel  College,  with  the  further  information 
that  he  became  B.  A.  in  1647e.  Of  his  connexion 

1  In  the  Dedication  of  his  '  Discourse  of  the  Visible  Church,' 
where  he  speaks  of  himself  as  '  formerly  a  plant  in  that  excellent 
nursery.' 

2  Obligingly  communicated  by  the  Master  of  Emmanuel  College. 


with  this  society  he  himself  makes  mention  in  the 
dedication  of  the  '  Roma  Ruit,'  induced  most  pro- 
bably by  the  circumstance  that  Archbishop  Sancroft 
whom  he  addresses  was  also  of  Emmanuel  College. 

o 

The  increase  of  the  revolutionary  troubles  would 
prevent  his  graduating  in  the  usual  course :  accord- 
ingly we  find  no  trace  of  him  in  the  University  till 
the  period  of  the  Restoration,  1660,  when  he  was 
created  D.  D.  by  royal  mandate.  On  the  31st  of 
August  in  the  same  year  he  was  installed  as  Arch- 
deacon of  Totton  or  Totnes'. — During  the  interval 
of  thirteen  years,  which  had  elapsed  since  his  B.  A. 
degree,  Fullwood  was  labouring  for  the  cause  of 
truth  and  order  in  the  south-western  dioceses.  His 
first  publication  appears  to  have  been  'Vindicise 
Mediorum  et  Mediatoris.'  The  date  is  1651,  and 
he  describes  himself  as  '  Minister  of  the  Gospel  at 
Staple  Fitz-pane  in  the  county  of  Somerset,'  (8vo, 
Lond.  1651).  In  this  Treatise  as  in  others,  Full- 
wood  is  refuting  the  extravagancies  of  the  age 
respecting  the  immediate  communication  of  spi- 
ritual influences.  Prefixed  is  a  kind  of  pastoral 
letter  which  he  addressed  to  the  'pious  flock  at 
Totnes,'  warning  them,  through  their  clergyman, 

1  Le  Neve,  Fasti,  p.  97.  The  archdeaconry  had  remained 
vacant  since  the  death  of  Edward  Cotton  in  1647.  After  one 
interval  Fullwood  was  succeeded  by  Francis  Atterbury. 


VI 

against  the  errors  then  prevalent.  This  circum- 
stance indicates  a  more  than  ordinary  interest  in 
the  town,  which  afterwards  gave  the  name  to  his 
archdeaconry1. — In  the  following  year  he  published 
'The  Churches  and  Ministry  of  England  true 
Churches  and  true  Ministry,  proved  in  a  Sermon  at 
Wiviliscombe,'  (4to,  Lond.  1652).— In  1656,  ap- 
peared '  A  true  Relation  of  a  Dispute  between  him 
and  one  Thomas  Salthouse,'  (4to,  Lond.)  He  is  at 
this  time  described  as  '  Minister  of  West  Alvington, 
in  the  county  of  Devon.'  His  antagonist  was  a  very 
unlearned  Quaker. — The  next  publication  of  our 
Author  was  'A  Discourse  of  the  Visible  Church, 
in  a  large  Debate  of  this  famous  Question,  viz. 
Whether  the  Visible  Church  may  be  considered  to 
be  truly  a  Church  of  Christ,  without  respect  to 
saving  grace?'  (4to,  Lond.  1658.)  In  this  Treatise 
(which  contains  296  pages,  besides  an  Appendix  on 
Confirmation)  Fullwood  is  still  described  as  Min- 

1  About  the  same  time  Fullwood  appears  to  have  published  an 
Examination  of  '  Want  of  Church  Government  no  warrant  for  omis- 
sion of  the  Lord's  Supper.'  The  author  of  this  treatise  was  Henry 
Jeanes  (the  antagonist  of  Bp.  Taylor);  it  bears  the  date  1650,  but 
no  copy  of  Fullwood's  '  Examination'  has  been  met  with.  Wood 
(Athen.  Oxon.  Vol.  n.  p.  299)  in  mentioning  this  controversy  gives 
a  few  particulars  respecting  Fullwood.  See  also  Blisso's  Edition, 
Vol.  in.  p.  591.  Two  slight  notices  occur  in  Wood's  Fasti,  ed. 
Blisse,  but  both  are  unimportant.  The  same  may  be  said  of  passing- 
references  to  Fullwood  in  Sylvester's  '  Life  of  Baxter,'  and  other 
contemporary  writers. 


VI 1 

ister  of  West  Alvington  in  Devon. — His  elevation 
to  the  archdeaconry  of  Totnes  in  16(50  did  not  abate 
his  former  activity,  nor  lessen  the  usefulness  of  his 
labours.  In  1661,  he  put  forth  'Some  necessary 
and  seasonable  Cases  of  Conscience  about  things 
indifferent  in  matters  of  Religion,  briefly  yet  faith- 
fully stated  and  resolved1,'  (8vo,  Lond.);  in  1667, 
'  The  General  Assembly,  or  the  Necessity  of  receiv- 
ing the  Communion  in  our  public  Congregations, 
a  sermon  on  Heb.  xii.  23;'  in  1672,  'The  Necessity 
of  Keeping  our  Parish  Churches,  argued  from  the 
Sin  and  Danger  of  the  Schisms  in  the  Church  of 
Corinth,  and  of  the  present  Separation,  in  a  Sermon 
before  the  Judges  at  the  Assizes  at  Exeter.' — In 
1679  appeared  the  'Roma  Ruit9,'  at  a  time  when 
Churchmen  were  beginning  to  look  forward  with 
apprehension  to  the  reign  of  a  Romish  proselyte. 
Its  character  and  object  are  clearly  described  in 
the  'Epistle  Dedicatory'  and  the  'Preface  to  the 
Reader.' — In  168f  was  published  'Leges  Angliae; 
the  Lawfulness  of  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  in  the 
Church  of  England,  asserted  and  vindicated.'  The 

1  This  treatise  was  published  anonymously,  and  is  assigned  to 
Fullwood  on  the  authority  of  the  Bodleian  Catalogue.  In  the 
same  Catalogue  mention  is  made  of  two  pamphlets  on  '  Toleration 
not  to  be  abused,'  (Lond.  1672),  both  anonymous,  but  there  classed 
among  Fullwood's  writings. 

2  The  title  was  perhaps  suggested  by  Featley's  '  Roma  Ruens.' 


Vlll 

main  Treatise  here  assailed  by  Fullwood  bears 
the  title  'Naked  Truth,  the  2nd  Part:'  it  was 
one  of  the  many  scurrilous  productions  of  Edmund 
Hickeringil,  formerly  Fellow  of  Gonville  and  Caius 
College,  Cambridge.  The  '  Leges  Anglise'  and  the 
'Roma  Ruit'  were  bound  up  together,  and  pub- 
lished in  1681,  with  the  title  'The  Established 
Church.'  There  was,  however,  at  this  time  no  new 
edition  of  the  'Roma  Ruit1.' — The  remaining  works 
of  Fullwood  (so  far  as  the  Editor  can  discover)  are 
as  follows :  '  The  Case  of  the  Times  discussed ;  being 
an  Exercitation  of  two  cases  upon  Rom.  xiii.  1—5,' 
(8vo,  Lond.  1683);  'The  Socinian  Controversy 
touching  the  Son  of  God  reduced,  in  a  brief  Essay 
to  prove  the  Son  one  in  Essence  with  the  Father, 
upon  Socinian  principles,  concessions,  and  reason,' 
(8vo,  Lond.  1693);  'A  Parallel  wherein  it  appears 
that  the  Socinian  agrees  with  the  Papist,  if  not 
exceeds  him,  in  Idolatry,  Antiscripturism,  and  Fana- 
ticism,' (8vo,  Lond.  1693). 

On  the  27th   of  August,  in   this  same   year, 
Francis  Fullwood  died2. 


1  This  statement  rests  on  internal  evidence  of  paging,  typogra- 
phical errors,  &c. ;  yet  in  Clavel's  '  Catalogue  of  Books  printed  since 
the  Fire/  'the  Established  Church'  is  classed  among  the  'New 
Works'  published  in  Easter  Term,  1681. 

2  Le  Neve,  as  above. 


IX 


It  remains  to  be  stated  that  the  present  reprint 
of  Full  wood's  labours  was  undertaken  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  Professor  Corrie,  as  a  supplement  to  the 
recent  edition  of  Sir  Roger  Twysden's  Historical 
Vindication  of  the  Church  of  England.  The  refer- 
ences throughout  have  been  verified,  and  authorities 
supplied  within  [  ],  where  Full  wood  had  given 
none,  or  the  name  only  of  some  writer  in  a  side- 
note.  In  a  few  instances,  inaccuracies  have  been 
detected,  but  they  are  generally  such  as  may  be 
accounted  for  by  the  Author's  inability  to  correct 
the  press, — a  circumstance  dwelt  upon  by  his  Printer, 
who  begs  that  the  'escapes  be  not  laid  upon  the 
Author.'  The  Editor  would  enter  a  like  plea,  if  it 
be  found  that  either  in  the  foot-notes,  or  in  the 
Appendix  on  English  Romanists,  he  has  inserted 
anything  unworthy  of  the  subject. 

CHARLES   HARDWICK. 


ST.  CATHARINE'S  HALL,  CAMBRIDGE, 
Sept.  22,  1847. 


REVERENDISSIMO    IN    CHRISTO    PATRI 

GULIELMO1 

ARCHIEPISCOPO  CANTUARIENSI, 
TOTIUS  ANGLIC   PRIMATI, 

ET 
REGI/E  SERENISSIM^E  MAJESTATIS  A  SANCTIORIBUS  CONCILIIS, 

FRANCISCUS  FULLWOOD, 

OI.IM    COLLEGI1    EMMANUEL,    APUD    CANTABR1GIENSKS, 

LIBRUM  HUNC,  HUMILLIME  D.  D.  D. 


1  [i.e.  William  Sancroft.] 


TO 
THE  RIGHT  REVEREND  FATHER  IN  GOD 

GEORGE1    LORD   BISHOP   OF    WINTON, 

PRELATE  OF  THE  MOST  NOBLE  ORDER  OF  THE  GARTER. 


MY  VERY  GOOD   LORD, 

BLESSED  be  God  that  I  have  survived  this  labour, 
which  I  once  feared  I  should  have  sunk  under, 
and  that  I  live  to  publish  my  endeavours  once  more 
in  the  service  of  the  Church  of  England ;  and  thereby 
have  obtained  my  wished  opportunity,  to  dedicate  a 
monument  of  my  deep  sense  of  your  lordship's  mani- 
fold obligations  upon  me. 

In  particular,  I  rejoice  in  the  acknowledgment, 
that  I  owe  my  public  station,  next  under  God  and  his 
sacred  Majesty,  to  your  lordship's  assistance  and  sole 
interest,  though  I  cannot  think  so  much  out  of  kind- 
ness to  my  person  (then,  altogether  unknown  to  your 
lordship)  as  affection  and  care  of  the  Church  ;  grounded 
in  a  great  and  pious  intention  (however  the  object  be 
esteemed)  truly  worthy  of  so  renowned  a  prelate,  and 
(many  other  ways)  excellent  and  admired  patriot  of 
the  Church  of  England. 

If  either  my  former  attempts  have  been  anywise 
available  to  the  weakening  the  bulwarks  of  Noncon- 
formity, or  my  present  essay  may  succeed,  in  any 
1  [i.  e.  George  Morley.] 


xiv  THE  EPISTLE  DEDICATORY. 

measure,  to  evince  or  confirm  the  truth  in  this  greater 
controversy,  I  am  happy ;  that,  as  God  hath  some 
glory,  and  the  Church  some  advantage,  so  some  ho- 
nour redounds  upon  your  lordship,  who  with  a  virtuous 
design  gave  me  a  capacity  at  first,  and  ever  since 
have  quickened  and  animated  my  endeavours  in  those 
services. 

I  may  be  permitted  to  name  our  controversy  with 
the  Church  of  Rome,  the  great  controversy :  for 
having  been  exercised  in  all  the  sorts  of  controversy 
with  adversaries  on  the  other  hand,  I  have  found,  that 
all  of  them  put  together  are  not  considerable,  either 
for  weight  of  matter,  or  copiousness  of  learning,  or 
for  art,  strength,  or  number  of  adversaries,  in  com- 
parison of  this. 

It  takes  in  the  length  of  time,  the  breadth  of 
place,  and  is  managed  with  the  height  of  wit  and 
depth  of  subtilty  ;  the  hills  are  covered  with  the 
shadow  of  it,  and  its  boughs  are  like  the  goodly 
cedars. 

My  essay  in  these  Treatises  is  to  shorten  and  clear 
the  way ;  and  therefore,  though  I  must  run  with  it 
through  all  time,  I  have  reduced  the  place,  and 
removed  the  wit  and  subtilties,  that  would  impede 
our  progress. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  lop  off  luxuriant  branches, 
and  swelling  excrescences,  to  lay  aside  all  personal 
reflections,  captious  advantages,  sophistical  and  sar- 
castical  wit,  and  to  set  the  arguments  on  both  sides 
free  from  the  darkness  of  all  kind  of  cunning,  either 
of  escape  or  reply,  in  their  plain  light  and  proper 
strength ;  as  also  to  confine  the  controversy,  as  near 


THE  EPISTLE  DEDICATORY.  xv 

as  I  can,  within  the  bounds  of  our  own  concern,  i.  e 
our  own  Church. 

And  when  this  is  done,  the  plain  and  naked  truth 
is,  that  the  meanest  of  our  other  adversaries  (I  had 
almost  said  the  silly  Quaker  himself)  seems  to  me  to 
have  better  grounds,  and  more  like  Christian,  than 
the  glorious  cause  of  the  papacy. 

But  to  draw  a  little  nearer  to  our  point,  your 
lordship  cannot  but  observe,  that  one  end  of  the 
Roman  compass  is  ever  fixed  upon  the  same  centre, 
and  the  sum  of  their  clamour  is,  our  disobedience  to 
the  See  of  Rome.  Our  defence  stands  upon  a  two- 
fold exception,  (1)  Against  the  Authority.  (2)  A- 
gainst  the  Laws  of  Rome ;  and  if  either  be  justified, 
we  are  innocent. 

The  first  exception  (and  the  defence  of  our 
Church  against  the  authority  of  that  See)  is  the  mat- 
ter of  this  Treatise  ;  the  second  is  reserved. 

I  have  determined  that  all  the  arguments  for  the 
pope's  authority  in  England  are  reducible  to  a  five- 
fold plea,  the  right  of  conversion  as  our  apostle,  the 
right  of  a  patriarch,  the  right  of  infallibility,  the 
right  of  prescription,  and  the  right  of  universal  pas- 
torship :  the  examination  of  them  carries  us  through 
our  work. 

Verily,  to  my  knowledge,  I  have  omitted  nothing 
argumentative  of  any  one  of  these  pleas  ;  yea,  I  have 
considered  all  those  little  inconsiderable  things,  which 
I  find  any  Romanists  seem  to  make  much  of.  But, 
indeed,  their  pretended  right  of  possession  in  Eng- 
land, and  the  universal  pastorship  (to  which  they 
adhere  as  their  surest  holds,)  have  my  most  intended 


xvi  THE  EPISTLE  DEDICATORY. 

and  greatest  strength,  and  care  and  diligence ;  that 
nothing  material,  or  seemingly  so,  might  escape  either 
unobserved,  or  not  fully  answered ; — let  not  the  con- 
trary be  said,  but  shewn. 

I  have  further  laboured  to  contract  the  contro- 
versy two  ways. 

(1)  By  a  very  careful,  as  well  as  large,  and  I  hope, 
as  clear  state  of  the  question,  in   my  definition  and 
discourse  of  schism,  at  the  beginning  ;  whereby  mis- 
takes may  be  prevented,  and  much  of  matter  disputed 
by  others  excluded. 

(2)  By  waving  the  dispute  of  such  things  as  have 
no  influence  into  the  conclusion  ;  and  (according  to  my 
use)  giving  as  many  and  as  large   concessions  to  the 
adversary,  as  our  cause  will  suffer. 

Now  my  end  being  favourably  understood,  I  hope, 
there  is  no  need  to  ask  your  lordship's,  or  any  other's, 
pardon,  for  that  I  have  chosen  not  to  dispute  two 
great  things : 

(1)  That  in  the  words  '  Tu  es  Petrus,  et  super  hanc 
Petram,'  there  is  intended  some  respect,  peculiar  to 
St  Peter's  person.     It  is  generally  acknowledged  by 
the  most  learned  defenders  of  our  Church,  that  St 
Peter    had  a  primacy   of  order,    and  your  lordship 
well  knows,  that  many  of  the  ancient  fathers  have 
expressed  as  much ;  and  I  intend  no  more. 

(2)  That  tradition  may    be    infallible,    or    inde- 
fectible, in  the  delivery  of  the  essentials  of  religion, 
for  aught  we  know.     By  the  essentials,  we  mean  no 
more,  but  the  Creed,  the  Lord's   Prayer,  the  Deca- 
logue, and  the  two  Sacraments.    In  this  I  have  my 
second,   and  my  reason  too ;    for  then    Rushworth's 


THE  EPISTLE  DEDICATORY.  xvii 

Dialogues,  and  the  new  methods  of  Roman  opposition, 
need  not  trouble  us. 

My  good  Lord,  it  is  high  time  to  beg  your  pardon, 
that  I  have  reason  to  conclude  with  an  excuse  for  a 
long  epistle :  the  truth  is,  I  thought  myself  account- 
able to  your  lordship  for  a  brief  of  the  book,  that 
took  its  being  from  your  lordship's  encouragement ; 
and  the  rather,  because  it  seems  unmannerly  to 
expect  that  your  good  old  age  should  perplex  itself 
with  controversy,  which  the  good  God  continue  long 
and  happy,  to  the  honour  of  His  Church  on  earth, 
and  then  crown  with  the  glory  of  heaven.  It  is  the 
hearty  prayer  of, 

My  Lord, 

Your  Lordship's  most  obliged 
and  devoted  servant, 

FR.    FULLWOOD. 


A   PREFACE   TO   THE    READER. 


GOOD  READER, 

OUR  Roman  adversaries  claim  the  subjection  of 
the  Church  of  England  by  several  arguments, 
but  insist  chiefly  upon  that  of  Possession,  and  the 
Universal  Pastorship.  If  any  shall  deign  to  answer 
me,  I  think  it  reasonable  to  expect  they  should  attack 
me  there,  where  they  suppose  their  greatest  strength 
lies ;  otherwise,  though  they  may  seem  to  have  the 
advantage  by  catching  shadows,  if  I  am  left  unan- 
swered in  those  two  main  points,  the  substance  of 
their  cause  is  lost. 

I.  For  if  it  remain  unproved  that  the  Pope  had 
quiet  possession  here,  and  the  contrary  proof  continue 
unshaken,  the  argument  of  possession  is  on  our  side. 

I  doubt  not  but  you  will  find  that  the  Pope  had 
not  possession  here  before ;  that  he  took  not  posses- 
sion by  Austin  the  Monk ;  and  that  he  had  no  such 
possession  here  afterwards,  sufficient  to  create  or 
evince  a  title. 

It  is  confessed,  that  Austin  took  his  arch- 
bishopric of  Canterbury  as  the  gift  of  Saint  Gregory, 
and  having  recalled  many  of  the  people  to  Christi- 
anity, both  the  converts  and  the  converter  gave  great 
submission  and  respect  to  Saint  Gregory,  then  bishop 
of  Rome  ;  and  how  far  the  people  were  bound  to  obey 
their  parent  that  had  begotten  them,  or  he  his  mas- 

62 


xx  A  PREFACE 

ter,  that  sent  him  and  gave  him  the  primacy,  I  need 
not  dispute. 

But  these  things  to  our  purpose  are  very  certain. 
(1)  That  conversion  was  anciently  conceived  to  be 
the  ground  of  their  obedience  to  Saint  Gregory, 
which  plea  is  now  deserted,  and  that  Saint  Gregory 
himself  abhorred  the  very  title  of  universal  bishop,  the 
only  thing  now  insisted  on. 

(2)  It  is  also  certain  that  the  addition  of  autho- 
rity, which  the  King's  silence,  permission,  or  conni- 
vance gave  to  Austin,  was  more  than  Saint  Gregory's 
grant,  and  yet  that  connivance  of  the  new-converted 
King,  in  the  circumstances  of  so  great  obligation  and 
surprise,   (who  might  not  know,  or   consider,  or  be 
willing  to  exercise  his  royal  power  then  in  the  point) 
could  never  give  away  the  supremacy,  inherent  in  his 
crown,  from  his  successors  for  ever. 

(3)  It   is   likewise    certain,    that    neither    Saint 
Gregory's  grant,  nor  that  King's  permission,  did  or 
could  obtain  possession  for  the  Pope,  by  Austin,  as 
the    Primate    of   Canterbury,    over    all    the    British 
Churches  and  Bishops ;  which  were  then  many,  and 
had  not  the  same  reason  from  their  conversion  by 
him  to  own  his  jurisdiction,  but  did  stiffly  reject  all  his 
arguments  and  pretences  for  it.      King   ^Ethelbert, 
the  only  Christian  king  at  that  time  in  England,  had 
not  above   the  twentieth  part  of  Britain  within  his 
jurisdiction  ;    how  then  can  it  be  imagined  that  all 
the  king  of  England's  dominions,  in    England,   and 
Wales,  and  Scotland,   and   Ireland,  should    be    con- 
cluded within  the  primacy  of  Canterbury,  by  Saint 
Augustine's  possession  of  so  small  a  part  ? 


TO   THE  READER.  xxi 

(4)  It  is  one  thing  to  claim,  another  to  possess. 
Saint  Augustine's  commission  was,  to  subject  all  Bri- 
tain ;  to  erect  two  archbishoprics  and  twelve  bishop- 
pries,  under  each  of  them  ;  but  what  possession  he 
got  for  his  master,  appears  in  that,  after  the  death  of 
that   Gregory   and  Austin,  there  were  left   but  one 
archbishop  and  two  bishops,   of  the  Roman  commu- 
nion, in  all  Britain. 

(5)  Moreover,    the    succeeding    archbishops    of 
Canterbury  soon  after  discontinued  that   small   pos- 
session of  England    which    Augustine    had    gotten ; 
acknowledging  they  held  of  the  crown,  and  not  of  the 
Pope,  resuming  the  ancient  liberties  of  the  English 
Church,  which  before  had  been,  and  ought  always  to 
be,   independent  on  any  other ;  and  which  of  right 
returned,  upon  the  return  of  their  Christianity :  and 
accordingly  our  succeeding  kings,   with  their  nobles, 
and  commons,  and  clergy,  upon  all  occasions,  denied 
the  papal  jurisdiction  here,  as  contrary  to  the  King's 
natural  supremacy,    and  the  customs,   liberties,    and 
laws  of  this  kingdom. 

And  as  Augustine  could  not  give  the  mitre,  so 
neither  could  King  John  give  the  crown  of  England 
to  the  bishop  of  Rome.  For  (as  Matth.  Paris  relates) 
'  Philip  Augustus  answered  the  Pope's  legate,  no  king, 
no  prince,  can  alienate  or  give  away  his  kingdom,  but 
by  consent  of  his  barons  (who,  we  know,  protested 
against  King  John's  endeavour  of  that  kind)  bound 
by  knight's  service  to  defend  the  said  kingdom ;  and 
in  case  the  Pope  shall  stand  for  the  contrary  error, 
his  holiness  shall  give  to  kingdoms  a  most  pernicious 
example  :' — so  far  is  one  unwarrantable  act  of  a  fear- 


xxii  A  PREFACE 

ful  prince,  under  great  temptations,  from  laying  a 
firm  ground  for  the  Pope's  prescription.  And  it  is 
well  known,  that  both  the  preceding  and  succeeding 
kings  of  England  defended  the  rights  of  the  crown, 
and  disturbed  the  Pope's  possession,  upon  stronger 
grounds  of  nature,  custom,  and  plain  statutes,  and  the 
very  constitution  of  the  kingdom,  from  time  to  time, 
in  all  the  main  branches  of  supremacy,  as,  I  doubt 
not,  but  is  made  to  appear  by  full  and  authentic 
testimony  beyond  dispute. 

II.  The  other  great  plea  for  the  Pope's  authority 
in  England  is  that  of  Universal  Pastorship.  Now  if 
this  cannot  be  claimed  by  any  right,  either  Divine, 
civil,  or  ecclesiastical,  but  the  contrary  be  evident, — 
and  both  the  Scriptures,  Emperors,  Fathers,  and 
Councils  did  not  only  not  grant,  but  deny  and  reject, 
the  Pope's  Supremacy  as  an  usurpation, — what  reason 
hath  this,  or  any  other  Church,  to  give  away  their 
liberty  upon  bold  and  groundless  claims  ? 

The  pretence  of  civil  right,  by  the  grant  of  Em- 
perors, they  are  now  ashamed  of,  for  three  reasons ; 
it  is  too  scant,  and  too  mean,  and  apparently  ground- 
less ;  and  our  discourse  of  the  Councils  hath  beaten 
out  an  unanswerable  argument  against  the  claim  by 
any  other  right,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  Divine :  for 
all  the  general  Councils  are  found,  first,  not  to  make 
any  such  grant  to  the  Pope,  whereby  the  claim  by 
ecclesiastical  right  is  to  be  maintained ;  but,  secondly, 
they  are  all  found  making  strict  provisions  against 
his  pretended  authority,  whereby  they  and  the  Ca- 
tholic Church  in  them  deny  his  Divine  right. 

It  is  plainly  acknowledged  by  Stapleton  himself, 


TO  THE  READER.  xxiii 

that,  before  the  Council  of  Constance,  Non  Divino  sed 
humano  jure,  et  positivis  Ecclesice  decretis,  primatum 
Romani  Pontificis  niti  senserunt,  speaking  of  the  Fa- 
thers ;  that  is,  the  Fathers  before  that  Council  thought 
the  primacy  of  the  Pope  was  not  of  Divine  right,  and 
that  it  stood  only  upon  the  positive  decrees  of  the 
Church ;  and  yet  he  further  confesseth  in  the  same 
place,  that  the  power  of  the  Pope  now  contended  for 
(nullo  sane  decreto  publico  deftnita  est) '  is  not  defined  by 
any  public  Decree,'  tacito  tamen  doctorum  consensu. 

Now  what  can  remain,  but  that  which  we  find  him 
immediately  driven  to,  viz.  to  reject  the  pretence  of 
human  right  by  positive  Decrees  of  the  Church,  and 
to  adhere  only  (as  he  himself  affirmeth  they  generally 
now  do)  to  the  Divine  right :  Nunc  (inquit)  autem 
nemini  amplius  Catholico  dubium  est,  prorsus  Divino 
jure,  et  quidem  illustribus  Evangelii  testimoniis  hunc 
Primatum  niti. 

Thus,  how  have  they  entangled  themselves!  If 
they  pretend  a  human  right,  he  acknowledgeth  they 
cannot  find  it,  where  it  ought  to  be  found,  in  the 
public  decrees  of  the  Church :  if  a  Divine  right,  he 
confesseth  the  Fathers  denied  it,  before  the  Council 
of  Constance  ;  and  he  knows  that  Council  condemned 
it. 

Stapleton  at  length  affirms,  that  now  no  Catholic 
doubts  but  the  Pope's  primacy  is  of  Divine  right; 
whence  the  heart  of  the  Roman  cause  is  stabbed,  by 
these  clear  and  sharp  conclusions, — 

1st  Conclusion :  That  all  Catholics  of  the  present 
Roman  Church  do  now  hold  a  new  article,  touching 
the  Pope's  primacy,  not  known  to  the  Fathers  before 


xxiv  A  PREFACE  TO  THE  READER. 

the  Council  of  Constance,  A.D.  1415,  and  condemned 
by  that  Council  as  an  error. 

2nd  Conclusion :  That  therein  the  faith  of  the 
present  Roman  Church  stands  counter  to  the  faith, 
decrees,  and  practices  of  all  the  first  general  Councils, 
consisting  of  Fathers  that  flourished  therein,  long 
before  the  Council  of  Constance,  i.  e.  in  their  own 
sense,  the  ancient  Catholic  Church. 

You  will  find  that  the  evidence  hereof  ariseth, 
not  only  from  the  words  of  Stapleton,  but  from  the 
decrees  of  all  the  first  eight  general  Councils,  every 
one  of  them,  one  way  or  other,  expressly  disclaiming 
that  supremacy  which  the  Pope  and  his  present 
Church  would  arrogate ;  and  in  those  Councils  all  the 
Fathers  and  the  Catholic  Church  are  confessedly  con- 
cluded; and  consequently,  antiquity,  infallibility,  and 
tradition  are  not  to  be  found  at  Rome. 

The  sum  is,  the  Church  of  England, — that  holds 
the  true,  ancient,  Catholic  faith,  and  the  first  four 
general  Councils,  and  hath  the  evidence  of  four  more 
on  the  point, — cannot  be  blamed  for  rejecting,  or  not 
readmitting,  a  novel  and  groundless  usurpation,  con- 
trary to  them  all,  and  contrary  also  to  the  profession 
of  the  present  Roman  Church,  that  pretends  to  be- 
lieve that  the  '  faith  of  the  first  eight  general  Councils 
is  the  Catholic  faith.' 


Imprimatur, 

GUIL.  JANE,  R.  P.  D.  HEN.  Episc.  LOND., 

a   Sacris  Domest. 
Jan.  24,  1678. 


THE   CONTENTS   OF   THE   CHAPTERS 
AND    SECTIONS. 


PAGE 

THE  INTRODUCTION.     THE  DESIGN.     THE  CONTROVERSY  CON- 
TRACTED INTO  ONE  POINT,  VIZ.  SCHISM  *  .  1 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  DEFINITION  OF  SCHISM. 

Sect.  1.     Of  the  Act  of  it .3 

Sect.  2.     The  Subject  of  Schism         .....  4 

Sect.  3.     The  Object  of  Schism 7 

(1)  Faith 7 

(2)  Worship 9 

(3)  Government           ....           .  12 
Sect.  4.     The  Conditions.     Causeless.     Voluntary       .           .14 
Sect.  5.     The  Application   of  Schism;   it  is  not  applicable 

to  us .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  17 

In  the  Act 17 

Or  Cause 19 

Sect.  6.     The  Application  of  it  to  the  Romanists          .          .  20 
Sect.  7.     The  Charge  retorted  upon  them      ...  22 
The  Controversy  broken  into  two  Points.    The  Autho- 
rity.    The  Cause 24 


CHAPTER  II. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  PAPAL  AUTHORITY  m  ENGLAND.    FIVE 

ARGUMENTS  PROPOSED  AND  BRIEFLY  REFLECTED  ON       .  25 

1.  Conversion.    2.  Prescription.    3.  Western  Patriarchate. 
4.  Infallibility.     5.  Succession  .          .          .          .26 


xxvi  THE  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  III. 

PAGE 

OF  THE  POPE'S  CLAIM  FROM  OUR  CONVERSION,  BY  ELEUTHERIUS, 

GREGORY          .....  .29 

CHAPTER  IV. 

His  CLAIM  AS  PATRIARCH.    FOUR  PROPOSITIONS  LAID  DOWN. 

(1)  The  Pope  was  Patriarch  of  the  West        ...  34 

(2)  He  had  then  a  limited  Jurisdiction      ...  35 

(3)  His  Patriarchate  did  not  include  Britain  .  .  38 

(4)  A  Patriarch  and  Universal  Bishop  inconsistent      .  40 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  THIRD  PAPAL  CLAIM,  PRESCRIPTION.    THE  CASE  STATED      43 

Their  Plea.     Our  Answer  in  three  Propositions,  viz. 

(1)  The  Pope  never  had  possession  absolutely  .      44 

(2)  That  which  he  had  could  never  create  a  Title        .  ib. 

(3)  However  his  Title  extinguished  with  his  possession  .      ib. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  PAPACY  OF  NO  POWER  HERE  FOR  THE  FIRST  600  YEARS 

(AUGUSTINE,  DIONOTH)  m  FACT,  OR  FAITH,  &c.       .          .      45 

Sect.  1.     No  one  part  of  Papal  Jurisdiction  was  exercised 
here  for  600  hundred  years;   not  Ordination  till  1100 
years  after  Christ,  &c.  nor  any  other      ...  50 

Sect  2.     No  possession  of  belief  of  his  Jurisdiction  then,  in 

England  or  Scotland       ......       58 

Sect.  3.     This  belief  could  have  no  ground  in  the  Ancient 

Canons.    Apostolic,  Nicene,  Milevitan,  &c.       .          .  60 

Sect.  4.     Of  Councils.     Sardica,  Chalcedon,  Constantinople   .       62 
Sect.  5.    Arabic  Canons  forged ;  not  of  Nice  .          .  68 

Sect.  6.     Ancient  practice  interpreted  the  Canons  against  the 
Pope:  Disposing  of  Patriarchs:  S.  Cyprian,  S.  Augus- 
tine's sense,  in  practice    .          .          .          .          .          .71 

Sect.  7.     The  sayings  of  Ancient  Popes,  Agatho,  Pelagius, 

Gregory,  Victor,  against  the  pretence  of  Supremacy  .  78 
Sect.  8.  The  words  of  the  Imperial  Law  against  him  .  104 
Sect.  9.  The  Conclusion,  touching  possession  in  the  first 

Ages,  viz.  600  years  from  Christ          .  .  .  .112 


THE  CONTENTS.  xxvii 

CHAPTER  VII. 

PAGK 

THE  POPE  HAD  NOT  FULL  POSSESSION  HERE  BEFORE  HENRY 

VIII.  ....  115 

Sect.  1.     Not  in  St.  Augustine's  time         .          .          .          .  ib. 
A  true  state  of  the  question  betwixt  the  Pope  and  the 

King  of  England  in  seven  particulars  .  .          .  118 

Sect.  2.     No  clear  or  full  possession  in  the  Ages  after  Austin, 

till  Henry  VIII. 119 

In  eight  distinctions  of  Supremacy  ib. 

The  question  stated  by  them   .....  120 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

WHAT  SUPREMACY  HENRY  VIII.  TOOK  FROM  THE  POPE  ;  THE 

PARTICULARS  OF  IT ;  WITH  NOTES  UPON  THEM,  &C.  .  122 

CHAPTER  IX. 

WHETHER  THE  POPE'S  POSSESSION  HERE  WAS  A  QUIET  POSSES- 
SION TILL  HENRY  VIH.  AS  TO  THE  POINT  OF  SUPREMACY  124 

Sect.  1.  Of  Appeals  to  Rome.  Three  Notions  of  Appeal. 
Appeals  to  Rome  locally,  or  by  Legates.  Wilfrid.  An- 
selm  .........  ib. 

Sect.  2.  Of  the  Possession  by  Legates ;  the  occasion  of  them 

here;  their  entertainment  .  .  .  .  .134 

CHAPTER  X. 

OF  THE  POPE'S  LEGISLATIVE  POWER  HERE,  BEFORE  HENRY  VIII. 
CANONS  OBLIGE  us  NOT  WITHOUT  OUR  CONSENT.  OUR 
KINGS,  SAXON,  DANISH,  NORMAN,  MADE  ECCLESIASTICAL 
LAWS  ........  144 

CHAPTER  XI. 

OF  THE  POWER  OF  PAPAL  LICENCES,  &c.  IN  EDWARD  L,  III. ; 
RICHARD  II.,  HENRY  IV.,  HENRY  V.,  HENRY  VI.,  HENRY 
VII.'s  TIME 152 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  PATRONAGE  OF  THIS  CHURCH;  EVER  IN  OUR  OWN  KINGS; 

BY  HISTORY;  BYLAW       ......    160 


xxviii  THE  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

PAGE 

OF  PETER-PENCE,  AND  OTHER  PAYMENTS  TO  THE  POPE  170 

First-fruits 172 

Payments  Extraordinary     .....  175 

Casual         ......  •     178 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  CONCLUSION  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  OF  PRESCRIPTION  ;  IT  is  ON 

OUR  SIDE  .......          180 

On  their  side,  of  no  force         .          .          .          .          .          .181 

CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  PLEA  FROM  INFALLIBILITY  CONSIDERED  ;  IN  ITS  CONSE- 
QUENCE RETORTED  .  .  .  .  .  .183 

Sect.  1.  Scripture  Examples  for  Infallibility  .  .  .  185 

High  Priest  not  Infallible;  nothing  to  the  Pope  .  186 

Apostles  ........  188 

Sect.  2.     Scripture-promises  of  Infallibility     .          .          .  189 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

SECOND  ARGUMENT  FOR  INFALLIBILITY,  viz.  TRADITION  ;  FOUR 
CONCESSIONS;  THREE  PROPOSITIONS  ABOUT  TRADITION. 
ARGUMENTS,  OBJECTIONS,  &c.  .  .  .  .  .194 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  THIRD  WAY  OF  ARGUMENT  FOR  INFALLIBILITY,  VIZ.  BY  REA- 
SON ;  THREE  REASONS  ANSWERED  ;  THE  POINT  ARGUED  ; 
RETORTED  ........  201 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  UNIVERSAL  PASTORSHIP;  ITS  RIGHT,  DIVINE  OR  HUMAN; 
THIS,  CIVIL  OR  ECCLESIASTICAL  ;  ALL  EXAMINED.  CONSTAN- 
TINE,  KING  JOHN,  JUSTINIAN,  PHOCAS,  &c.  AS  TO  CIVIL 
RIGHT  206 


THE  CONTENTS.  xxix 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

PAGE 

His  ECCLESIASTICAL  RIGHT  BY  GENERAL  COUNCILS;  THE  EIGHT 
FIRST,  TO  WHICH  HE  IS  SWORN.  JUSTINIAN'S  SANCTION  OP 
THEM.  CANONS  APOSTOLICAL  ALLOWED  BY  THE  COUNCIL  OP 
NICE  AND  EPHESUS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .216 

Sect.  1.     Canons  of  the  Apostles     .....         219 

Sect.  2.     First  General  Council  of  Nice.    Bellarmine's  Eva- 
sion   .........    220 

Sect.  3.     Concil.  (third  General)  Constantinop.,  A.  D.  381  .         222 
Sect.  4.     Concil.  Ephesin.  (third  General,)  A.  D.  431      .          .    223 
Sect.  5.     Concil.  Calced.  (fourth  General,)  A.D.  451  .          225 

Sect.  6.     Concil.  Constantin.  2,  (the  fifth  General  Council,) 

A.  D.  553  .......          228 

Sect.  7.     Concil.  Constant,  (sixth  General,)  A.  D.  681,  v.  685. 

Nicene.  (seventh  General,)  A.  D.  781     ....    229 

Sect.  8.     Concil.  Constant,  (eighth  General)  A.D.  869        .         230 
Seven  Conclusions  from  Councils      .....    231 

Sect.  9.     Of  the  Latin  Church.    The  Councils  of  Constance, 

Basil,  &c.  A.  D.  1415,  1431 233 

Sect.  10.  The  Greek  Church.  African  Canons.  Synod. 
Carthag.  Concil.  Antiochen.  The  Faith  of  the  Greek 
Church  since  in  the  Point  .....  235 
Sect.  11.  The  Sardican  Canons.  No  Grant  from  their  mat- 
ter, manner,  or  authority.  No  Appendix  to  the  Council 
of  Nice.  Zosimus  his  forgery;  they  were  never  rati- 
fied, nor  received,  as  Universal ;  and  were  contradicted 
by  after  Councils  ......  239 


CHAPTER  XX. 
THE  POPE'S  TITLE  BY  DIVINE  RIGHT.     THE  QUESTION,  WHY  NOT 

SOONER  ?       IT  IS  THEIR  LAST  REFUGE  ....      245 

Sect.  1.     Whether  the  Government  of  the  Church  be  Mo- 
narchical, Jure  Divino  ?  Bellarmine.    Reason.    Scrip- 
ture    ........         246 

Promises,  Metaphors,  and  Example  of  the  High  Priest  in 

Scripture  ........    249 

Sect.  2.     Of  St.  Peter's  Monarchy.     Tu  es  Petrus    .          .         252 
Fathers'  Expressions  of  it          .          .          .          .          .    258 

Fathers  corrupted,  and  Council  of  Chalcedon,  by  Thomas  .    260 


xxx  THE   CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

I'AUK 

OP  THE  POPE'S  SUCCESSION      ...  .          .         269 

Sect.  1.     Whether  the  Primacy  descended  to  the  Bishop  of 
Eome  as  such,  by  Succession  from  St.  Peter.  Neg. — 
Bellarmine's  Twenty-eight  Prerogatives  of  St.    Peter; 
personal  or  false          ......         270 

Application  of  this  Section .          .          .          .          .          .274 

By  three  great  Inferences :  the  Pope's  ancient  Primacy  not 
that  of  St.  Peter :  not  Jure  Divino :  not  to  descend  to 
succeeding  Popes  .  .  .  .  .  ib. 

Sect.  2.  Whether  the  Pope  have  Supremacy  as  Successor  to 
St.  Peter.  Neg.  not  Primate  as  such;  Peter  himself 
not  Supreme ;  the  Pope  did  not  succeed  him  at  all  .  276 

Sect.  3.  Argument  I.  Peter  assigned  it  to  the  Pope :  an- 
swered ........  277 

Sect.  4.     Argument  II.     The  Bishop  of  Rome  succeeded 

Peter,  because  Antioch  did  not :  answered  .          .    278 

Sect.  6.     Argument  III.     St.  Peter  died  at  Rome :  answered ; 

question  de  facto,  not  de  fide          .          .          .          .         279 

Sect.  6.     Argument  IV.     From  Councils,  Popes,  Fathers       .    281 

Sect.  7.  Argument  V.  For  prevention  of  Schism.  St.  Je- 
rome ........  282 

Sect.  8.     Argument  VI.     The  Church  committed  to  his  care. 

St.  Chrysostom      .......    283 

Sect.   9.      Argument  VII.     '  One  Chair.'     Optatus,  Cyprian, 

Ambrose,  Acacius        ......         284 

Sect.  10.  The  Conclusion  touching  the  Fathers.  Reasons 
why  we  are  not  more  particular  about  them.  A  Chal- 
lenge touching  them.  There  cannot  be  a  consent  of  the 
Fathers  for  the  Papacy,  as  is  evident  from  the  General 
Councils.  Reasons  for  it.  Rome's  Contradiction  of  Faith. 
The  Pope's  Schism,  Perjury,  &c.  .  .  289 

The  Sum  of  the  whole  matter.     A  Touch  of  another  Treatise. 

The  material  Cause  of  Separation  .          .          .         294 


THE  CONTENTS.  xxxi 

THE   POSTSCRIPT: 

OBJECTIONS    TOUCHING   THE    FIRST   GENERAL   COUN- 
CILS;   AND  OUR  ARGUMENTS  FROM   THEM 
ANSWERED  MORE  FULLY. 

SECTION  I. 

THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  COUNCILS  DRAWN  UP.    IT  is  CONCLUSIVE  OP 

THE  FATHERS,  AND  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH     .          .          .     296 

SECTION  II. 
OBJECTIONS  TOUCHING  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE  ANSWERED          .          299 

SECTION  III. 
OBJECTIONS  TOUCHING  THE  COUNCIL  OP  CONSTANTINOPLE.    SECOND 

GENERAL        ........     301 

SECTION  IV. 
THE  THIRD  GENERAL  COUNCIL,  viz.  THE  EPHESINE     .          .         305 

SECTION  V. 

OF  THE  FOURTH,  FIFTH,  SIXTH,  SEVENTH,  EIGHTH  GENERAL 
COUNCILS.  BINIUS  HIS  QUOTATIONS  OF  ANCIENT  POPES  CON- 
SIDERED ........  307 

Conclusion        ....  ...        313 

[APPENDIX  ON  ENGLISH  ROMANISTS          ....         314] 


A  SERIOUS  ALARM  TO  ALL  SORTS  OP  ENGLISHMEN  AGAINST  PO- 
PERY ;  FROM  SENSE  AND  CONSCIENCE,  THEIR  OATHS  AND 
THEIR  INTEREST  .......  319 

The  Oath  of  Allegiance  and  Supremacy  .          .          .       326 


THE   INTRODUCTION. 

THE  DESIGN.— THE  CONTROVERSY  CONTRACTED 
INTO   ONE  POINT,  viz.   SCHISM. 


THE  Church  of  England  hath  been  long  possessed 
both  of  herself  and  the  true  religion,  and  counts 
it  no  necessary  part  of  that  religion  to  molest  or 
censure  any  other  Church.  Yet  she  cannot  be  quiet, 
but  is  still  vexed  and  clamoured  with  unwearied 
outcries  of  Heresy  and  Schism  from  the  Church  of 
Rome,  provoking  her  defence. 

The  ball  hath  been  tossed  as  well  by  cunning  as 
learned  hands,  ever  since  the  Reformation ;  and  it  is 
complained,  that  by  weak  and  impertinent  allegations, 
tedious  altercations,  unnecessary  excursions,  and  much 
sophistry,  needlessly  lengthening  and  obscuring  the 
controversy,  it  is  in  danger  to  be  lost. 

After  so  great  and  so  long  exercises  of  the  best 
champions  on  both  sides,  it  is  not  to  be  expected, 
that  any  great  advance  should  be  made  on  either : 
yet  how  desirable  is  it,  that  at  length  the  true  dif- 
ference were  clearly  stated,  and  the  arguments  stripped 
of  their  said  cumber,  and  presented  to  us  in  their 
proper  evidence,  and  the  controversy  so  reduced,  that 
the  world  might  perceive  where  we  are ;  and  doubtful 
inquirers  after  truth  and  the  safest  religion,  might 
satisfy  their  consciences  and  fix  their  practice. 

This  is  in  some  measure  the  ambition  of  the 
present  Essay.  In  order  to  it,  we  have  observed  that 
1 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

the  shop  out  of  which  all  the  arms,  both  offensive 
and  defensive,  on  both  sides  are  fetched,  is  Schism  ; 
and  the  whole  controversy  is  truly  contracted  into 
that  one  point,  which  will  appear  by  two  things — 

1.  By  the  State  of  the  allowed  nature  of  Schism. 

2,  By  the  Application  of  it  so  explained. 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE    DEFINITION    OF    SCHISM. 


SECTION  I. 
OF   THE   ACT   OF   SCHISM. 

rpHAT  we  may  lie  open  to  their  full  charge,  we 
-L  lay  the  notion  in  as  great  a  latitude,  as,  I  think, 
our  adversaries  themselves  would  have  it. 

Schism  is  a  voluntary  division  of  a  Christian 
Church,  in  its  external  Communion,  without  sufficient 
cause. 

(1)  It    is  a  Division — 1  ^i^oo-Tcwi'ai,   divisions   or  Act. 
rents   among  you.      This  division   of  the   Church   is 
made  either  in  the  Church  or  from  it.      In  it,  as  it  is 

a  particular  Church,  which  the  Apostle  blames  in  the  Division  in 
Church2  of  Corinth  ;  though  they  came  together,  and  particular. 
did  not  separate  from  the  external  Communion,  but 
divided  in  it  and  about  it. 

(2)  Division  is  made  also  in  the  Church  as  Catholic  Catholic. 
or  universal ;  and  some  charge  the  Church  or  court  of 
Rome  (as  we  shall  observe  hereafter)  herewith,  as  the 
cause  of  many  deplorable  rents  and  convulsions  in 

the  bowels  of  it :  and  indeed  in  a  true  sense,  all  that 
are  guilty  of  dividing  either  in,  or  from  a  particular 
Church  (without  just  cause)  are  guilty  of  Schism  in 
the  Catholic,  as  the  aggregatum  of  all  particular 
Churches. 

There  is  division  as  well  from,  as  in  the  Church ; 
i  [1  Cor.  iii.  3.]  2  [1  Cor.  xi.  20,  33.] 

1—2 


4  DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  I. 

and  this  is  either  such  as  is  improperly  called  sepa- 
ration, or  properly,  or  more  perfectly  so. 

(1)  Separation    improperly    so    called,    we    may 
term    negative ;    which  is   rather   a   recusancy   or    a 
denial  of  Communion,  where  it  is  either  due,  or  only 
claimed  and  not  due,  but  was  never  actually  given. 

(2)  It  is  properly  so,  where  an  actual  separation 
is  made,  and  Communion  broken  or  denied,  where  it 
has  wont  to  be  paid. 

(3)  Or  yet  more  perfectly,  when  those  that  thus 
separate    and    withdraw    their    Communion    from    a 
Church,  join   themselves    in   an   opposite   body,  and 
erect  altar  against  altar. 


SECTION  II. 
SUBJECT   OF   SCHISM. 

Subject.  rPHUS  of  the  Act  of  Schism,  Division.  Let  us 
-L  briefly  consider  the  Subject  of  this  division,  which 
is  not  a  civil  or  an  infidel  society,  but  a  Christian 
Church.  I  do  not  express  it  a  true  Church  (for  that 
is  supposed) :  for  if  it  be  a  Christian  Church  it  must 
be  true,  otherwise  it  is  not  at  all. 

Some  learned  of  our  own  side  distinguish  here 
of  the  truth  of  the  Church  physically  or  metaphy- 
sically considered,  or  morally ;  and  acknowledge  the 
Roman  Church  to  be  a  true  Church,  or  truly  a 
Church,  (as  some  would  rather  have  it),  but  deny  it 
to  be  such  morally :  and  plead  for  separation  from  it 
only  in  a  moral  sense,  or  as  it  is  not  a  true  Church, 
i.  e.  as  it  is  a  false  and  corrupt  Church,  not  as  it  is  a 
Church. 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  5 

But  finding  this  distinction  to  give  offence,  and 
perhaps  some  advantage  to  our  adversaries, — at  least 
for  the  amusing  and  disturbing  the  method  of  dispu- 
tation,— and  being  willing  to  reduce  the  difference  as 
much  as  I  am  able,  I  shall  not  insist  upon  these  dis- 
tinctions. 

I  confess,  pace  tantorum,  I  see  no  danger  in,  but 
rather  a  necessity  of,  granting  the  Church  of  Rome 
to  be  a  true  Church  even  in  a  moral  sense,  largely 
speaking — as  moral  is  distinguished  from  physical  or 
metaphysical :  and  the  necessity  of  this  concession 
ariseth  from  the  granting  or  allowing  her  to  be  a  true 
Church  in  any  sense,  or  a  Church  of  Christ. 

For  to  say,  that  a  Christian  Church  is  not  a  true 
Church  morally,  yet  is  so  really  (i.  e.  physically  or  me- 
taphysically), seems  to  imply  that  it  is  a  Christian 
Church,  and  it  is  not  a  Christian  Church  ;  seeing  all 
the  being  of  a  Christian  Church  depends  upon  its  truth 
in  a  moral  sense,  as  I  conceive  is  not  questioned  by 
either  side. 

And  when  we  grant  that  the  Church  of  Rome  or 
any  other  is  a  true  Christian  Church  in  any  sense,  we 
do  mean  that  she  retains  so  much  of  Christian  truth 
in  a  moral  sense,  as  is  requisite  to  the  truth  and 
being  of  a  Christian  Church. 

Indeed  the  very  essence  of  a  Christian  Church 
seems  to  be  of  a  moral  nature,  as  is  evident  in  all  its 
causes.  Its  efficient,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 
under  divine  influence,  is  a  moral  cause ;  the  form, 
living  in  true  faith  and  religion,  is  moral ;  its  end  and 
all  its  formal  actions,  in  profession  and  communion, 
are  of  a  moral  nature;  and  though  Christians  as  they 


6  DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  I. 

are  men,  are  indeed  natural  beings,  yet  as  they  are 
Christians  and  the  matter  of  the  Christian  Church,  and 
more,  as  they  are  in  a  society,  they  fall  properly  under 
a  moral  consideration. 

But  how  can  a  Church  be  true  and  not  true,  and 
both  in  a  moral  sense  ?  How  can  we  own  the  Church 
of  Rome  as  a  true  Church,  and  yet  leave  her  as  a 
false  Church,  and  true  and  false  be  both  taken 
morally  ?  Very  well :  and  our  learned  men  intend  no 
other,  though  they  speak  it  not  in  these  terms. 

For  to  be  true  and  false,  in  the  same  (moral)  sense, 
doth  not  imply  the  being  so,  in  the  same  respects. 
Thus  the  Church  of  Rome  may  be  granted  to  be  a 
true  Christian  Church,  with  respect  to  those  funda- 
mentals retained  in  her  faith  and  profession,  wherein 
the  being  and  truth  of  such  a  Church  consisteth  ;  and 
yet  be  very  false,  and  justly  to  be  deserted  for  her 
gross  errors,  in  many  other  points,  believed  also  and 
professed  by  her : — as  a  bill  in  chancery  may  be  a  true 
bill  for  the  substance  of  it  and  so  admitted ;  and  yet 
in  many  things  falsely  suggested,  it  may  be  very  false, 
and  as  to  them  be  rejected. 

i.  Catholic.  (1)  The  Church  as  the  subject  of  Schism  may  be 
further  considered  as  Catholic  ;  that  is,  absolute, 
formal,  essential,  and  as  it  lies  spread  over  all  the 
world,  but  united  in  one  common  faith.  From  this 
Church  the  Donatists,  and  other  ancient  heretics,  are 
said  to  have  separated. 

(2)  As  Particular,  in  a  greater  or  lesser  number 
or  part  of  the  Catholic.  Thus  the  modern  separatists 
forsaking  the  Church  of  England  are  said  to  be 
Schismatics. 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  7 

(3)  In  a  complex  and  mixed  sense ;  as  the  parti-  3-  Mixed, 
cular  Roman  Church,  pretending  also  to  be  the  Catholic 
Church,  calls  herself  Roman  Catholic,  and  her  particular 
bishop  the  Universal  Pastor.  In  which  sense,  the 
Church  of  England  is  charged  with  separation  from 
the  Catholic  Church,  for  denying  communion  with  the 
particular  Church  of  Rome. 


SECTION  III. 
FIRST   OBJECT   OF   SCHISM FAITH. 

THE    third    point  is  the  object,  about  and  in  which,  External 
separation   is  made — namely,   external  commu-  nion. 
nion  ;  in  those    three    great  means   or  bonds   of  it, 
Faith,  Worship,  and  Government — under  that  notion, 
as  they  are  bonds  of  Communion. 

The  first  is  Faith  or  doctrine :  and  it  must  be  Faith, 
acknowledged,  that  to  renounce  the  Church's  Faith, 
is  a  very  great  Schism  :  yet,  here,  we  must  admit  two 
exceptions.  It  must  be  the  Church's  Faith  ;  that  is, 
such  doctrine  as  the  Church  hath  defined  as  necessary 
to  be  believed,  if  we  speak  of  a  particular  Church  : 
for  in  other  points,  both  authorities  allow  liberty. 
Again,  though  the  Faith  be  broken,  there  is  not 
Schism  presently  or  necessarily,  except  the  external 
Communion  be  also,  or  thereby  disturbed.  Heretical 
principles  not  declared,  are  Schism  in  principle,  but 
not  in  act — ('Hast  thou  faith?  have  it  to  thyself").  It  is 
farther  agreed,  that  we  may  and  sometimes  must  differ 
with  a  particular  Church  in  doctrine,  wherein  she 
1  [Rom.  xiv.  22.] 


8  DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  1. 

departs  from  the  Catholic  Faith :  but  here  we  must 
take  care,  not  only  of  Schism,  but  damnation  itself, 
as  Athanasius  warns  us. 

Every  one  should  therefore  endeavour  to  satisfy 
himself  in  this  great  question,  What  is  Truth  ?  or  the 
true  Catholic  Faith  ?  To  say  presently,  that  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church,  is  to  beg  a  very  great 
question,  that  cannot  easily  be  given.  I  should  think 
Athanasius  is  more  in  the  right ;  when  he  saith,  '  This 
is  the  Catholic  Faith,'  &c.  In  my  opinion  they  must 
stretch  mightily  that  can  believe,  that  the  Catholic 
Faith,  without  which  no  man  can  be  saved — and 
therefore,  which  every  man  ought  to  understand — 
takes  in  all  the  doctrines  of  the  council  of  Trent. 

Till  the  contrary  be  made  evident,  I  shall  affirm 
after  many2  great  and  learned  men,  that  he  that 
believes  the  Scriptures  in  general,  and  as  they  are 
interpreted  by  the  Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church ; 
the  three  known  Creeds  ;  and  the  four  first  general 
councils,  and  knows  and  declares  himself  prepared  to 

1  ["Whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  necessary 
that  he  hold  the  Catholic  Faith."     Athanasian  Creed.] 

2  [e.g.   Bishop  Taylor,  'Letter  I.  to  one  seduced  to  the  Church 
of  Rome ' :    "  For  its  doctrine,  it  is  certain  it  (the  Church  of  Eng- 
land) professes  the  belief  of  all  that  is  written  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  all  that  which  is  in  the  three  Creeds,  the  Apostolical,  the 
Nicene,  and  that  of  Athanasius,  and  whatsoever  was  decreed  in  the 
four  general  councils,  or  in  any  other  truly  such ;   and  whatsoever 
was  condemned  in  these,  our  Church  hath  legally  declared  it  to  be 
heresy.     And  upon  these  accounts,  above  four  whole  ages  of  the 
Church  went  to  heaven ;  they  baptized  all  their  catechumens  into 
this  faith,  their  hopes  of  heaven  were  upon  this  and  a  good  life, 
their  saints  and  martyrs  lived  and  died  in  these  alone,  they  denied 
communion  to  none  that  professed  this  faith."     Works,  Vol.  xi. 
p.  184,  ed.  1822.] 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  9 

receive  any  further  truth  that  he  yet  knows  not, 
when  made  appear  to  be  so,  from  Reason,  Scripture, 
or  just  Tradition,  cannot  justly  be  charged  with  §chism 
from  the  Catholic  Faith. 

Methinks,  those  that  glory  in  the  old  religion 
should  be  of  this  mind ;  and  indeed,  in  all  reason, 
they  ought  to  be  so,  unless  they  can  shew  an  older 
and  better  means  of  knowing  the  Catholic  Faith  than 
this.  What  is  controverted  about  it,  we  shall  find 
hereafter  in  its  due  place. 

In  the  mean  time,  give  me  leave  to  note,  that 
our  more  learned  and  moderate  adversaries  do  acquit 
such  a  man  or  Church,  both  from  Heresy  and  Schism ; 
and  indeed  come  a  great  deal  nearer  to  us,  in  putting 
the  issue  of  the  controversy  very  fairly  upon  this 
unquestionable  point  :  "  They  who  first  separated 
themselves  from  the  primitive  pure  Church,  and 
brought  in  corruptions,  in  faith,  practice,  liturgy,  and 
use  of  Sacraments,  may  truly  be  said  to  have  been 
heretics,  by  departing  from  the  pure  faith  ;  and 
schismatics,  by  dividing  themselves  from  the  external 
communion  of  the  true  uncorrupted  Church  V 

SECOND  OBJECT  OF   SCHISM.— WORSHIP. 
A  second  band  of  external  communion  is  Public       2- 

Worship. 

\\  orship ;  in  which,  separation  from  the  Church  is 
notorious. 

But  here  'Public  Worship'  must  be  understood, 
only  so  far,   as  it  is  a  bond  of  communion,   and  no 
farther ;  otherwise,  there  is  no  breach  of  communion, 
1  Mr  Knott,  Infidelity  Unmasked,  c.  rii,  §  112,  p.  534. 


10  DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  I. 

though  there  be  difference  in  worship,  and  conse- 
quently no  schism. 

This  will  appear  more  plainly,  if  we  distinguish 
of  Worship  in  its  essentials  or  substantials,  and  its 
modes,  circumstances,  rites  and  ceremonies. 

It  is  well  argued  by  the  bishop  of  Chalcedon1, 
that  none  may  separate  from  the  Catholic  Church,  (or 
indeed  from  any  particular)  in  the  essentials  or  sub- 
stantial parts  of  Worship  :  for  these  are  God's  ordinary 
means  of  conveying  his  grace  for  our  salvation  ;  and 
by  these,  the  whole  Church  is  knit  together,  as 
Christ's  visible  Body  for  Divine  Worship. 

But  what  are  these  essentials  of  Worship  ?  Surely 
nothing  else  but  the  Divine  ordinances,  whether 
moral  or  positive,  as  abstracted  from  all  particular 
modes,  not  determined  in  the  Word  of  God.  Such 
as  Prayer,  the  reading  the  holy  Canon,  interpreting 
the  same,  and  the  Sacraments :  therefore,  that  Church 
that  worships  God  in  these  essentials  of  Worship, 
cannot  be  charged,  in  this  particular,  with  Schism,  or 
dividing  from  the  Catholic  Church. 

And  as  for  the  modes  and  particular  rites  of  Wor- 
ship, until  one  public  Liturgy  and  Rubric  be  produced, 
and  proved  to  be  the  rule  of  the  Catholic  Church,  if 
not  imposed  by  it,  there  is  no  such  bond  of  union  in 
the  circumstantial  Worship  in  the  Catholic  Church  ; 
and  consequently,  no  Schism  in  this  respect. 

Much  less  may  one  particular  Church  claim  from 
another — par  in  par  em  non  habet  imperium — exact 

1  [Cf.  Archbp.  Bramhall's  Replication :    Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  37, 
Ed.  1842.] 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  11 

communion  in  all  rites  and  ceremonies,  or  for  want 
thereof,  to  cry  out  presently,  Schism,  Schism ! 

Indeed,  our  Roman  adversaries  do  directly  and 
plainly  assert,  that  about  rites  and  ceremonies  the 
guilt  of  Schism  is  not  concerned  ;  and  that  particular 
Churches  may  differ  from  one  another  therein,  with- 
out breach  of  communion. 

Though,  for  a  member  of  a  particular  Church  to 
forsake  the  communion  of  his  own  Church,  in  the 
essentials  of  Worship,  merely  out  of  dislike  of  some 
particular  innocent  rites,  seems  to  deserve  a  greater 
censure. 

But  the  Roman  recusants  in  England,  have  a 
greater  difficulty  upon  them,  to  excuse  their  total1 
separation  from  us,  in  the  substantials  of  our  worship 
— at  which  they  can  pretend  to  take  no  offence ;  and 
wherein  they  held  actual  communion  with  us  many 
years  together,  at  the  beginning  of  queen  Elizabeth's 
reign — against  the  law  of  cohabitation,  observed  in 
the  Scripture,  where  a  city  and  a  Church  were  com- 
mensurate ;  contrary  to  the  order  (as  one  well  ob- 
serves) which  the  ancient  Church  took  for  preserving 
unity,  and  excluding  Schism  ;  by  no  means  suffering 
such  disobedience  or  division  of  the  members  of  any 
national  Church,  where  that  Church  did  not  divide 
itself  from  the  Catholic.  And  lastly,  contrary  to  the 
common  right  of  government,  both  of  our  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  the  conscience  of  laws,  both 
of  Church  and  State. 

But  their  pretence  is,  obedience  to  the  Pope ; 
which  leads  us  to  consider  the  third  great  bond  of 
communion — Government. 

[l  See  Appendix  A.] 


12  DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  I. 

THIRD   OBJECT  [OF   SCHISM].— GOVERNMENT. 

Thirdly,  the  last  bond  of  ecclesiastical  external 
communion  is  that  of  Government ;  that  is,  so  far 
as  it- is  lawful  in  itself,  and  exerted  in  its  Public 
Laws. 

This  government  can  have  no  influence  from  one 
national  Church  to  another,  as  such  ;  because  so  far 
they  are  equal — par  in  parem — but  must  be  yielded 
by  all  members  of  particular  Churches,  whether 
national,  provincial,  or  truly  patriarchal,  to  their 
proper  governors  in  all  lawful  things,  juridically  re- 
quired ;  otherwise,  the  guilt  of  Schism  is  contracted. 

But  for  the  government  of  the  Catholic,  we  cannot 
find  it  wholly  in  any  one  particular  Church,  without 
gross  usurpation ;  as  is  the  plain  sense  of  the  ancient 
Church.  Indeed,  it  is  partly  found  in  every  Church  : 
it  was  at  first  diffused  by  our  Universal  Pastor  and 
common  Lord  into  the  hands  of  all  the  Apostles l ; 
and,  for  ought  hath  yet  appeared,  still  lies  abroad 
among  all  the  pastors  and  bishops  of  particular 
Churches,  under  the  power,  protection,  and  assistance 
of  civil  authority — except  when  they  are  collected  by 
Just  power  and  legal  rules  into  synods  or  councils, 
whether  provincial,  national,  or  general.  Here,  in- 
deed, rests  the  weight  of  the  controversy;  but,  I 
doubt  not,  it  will  at  last  be  found  to  make  its  way 
against  all  contradiction  from  our  adversaries. 

In  the  mean  time  we  da-  conclude,  while  we  pro- 
fess and  yield  all  due  obedience  to  our  proper  pastors, 

1  [See  our  Lord's  language  addressed  to  all  the  apostles,  collect- 
ively and  individually,  John  xiv.  16;  xvii.  13;  xx.  21 — 23;  Matt, 
xxviii.  18 — 20.] 


CHAP.  1.]  DEFINITION.  13 

bishops  and  governors,  when  there  are  no  councils 
sitting  ;  and  to  all  free  councils,  wherein  we  are  con- 
cerned, lawfully  convened;  we  cannot  be  justly  charged 
with  Schism  from  the  government  of  the  Catholic 
Church  :  though  we  stiffly  deny  obedience  to  a 
foreign  jurisdiction,  and  will  not  rebel  against  the 
government  that  God  hath  placed  immediately  over 
us. 

This  fair  respect  the  Church  of  England  holds  to 
the  Communion  both  of  the  Catholic  and  all  particular 
Churches,  both  in  Doctrine,  Worship  and  Govern- 
ment :  and  the  main  exception  against  her  is,  that 
she  denies  obedience  to  a  pretended  power  in  the  see 
of  Rome  ;  a  power  not  known,  as  now  claimed,  to  the 
ancient  Church  ;  a  power,  when  once  foreseen,  warned 
against  as  antichristian  by  a  pope1  himself;  and  when 
usurped,  condemned  by  a  General  Council2:  and 
lastly,  such  a  power  as  those  that  claim  it,  are  not 
agreed  about  among  themselves3. 

But  the  charge  of  Schism  falls  after  another  sort, 
upon  our  Roman  adversaries ;  who  have  disturbed 
the  Universal,  and  all  particular  Churches  by  ma- 
nifest violation  of  all  the  three  bonds  of  external 
Communion : — 

The  Doctrine  and  Faith — by  adding  to  the  Canon 
of  the  Scripture,  Apocryphal  books ;  by  adding  to 
the  revealed  will  of  God,  groundless  Traditions;  by 

1  [Infra,  c.  vi.  §  7.]  2  [Infra,  c.  xix.  $  7.] 

3  [All  their  theologians  maintain  that  communion  with  the  papal 
see  is  necessary,  in  order  to  union  with  the  Church :  yet  the  Galli- 
can  or  Cisalpine  party  deny  the  pope's  infallibility,  and  the  whole 
of  that  power  which  they  call  temporal.] 


14-  DEFINITION.  [CHAI>.  I. 

making  new  Creeds  without  the  consent  of  the 
present,  and  against  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the 
ancient  Churches. 

And  as  for  Worship — how  have  they  not  cor- 
rupted it?  by  subtraction,  taking  away  one  essential 
part  of  a  divine  ordinance,  the  Cup  from  the  Laity, 
&c. ;  by  additions  infinite  to  the  material  and  cere- 
monial parts  of  Worship ;  and  by  horrid  alterations 
of  the  pure  and  primitive  Worship,  to  childish  super- 
stitions, and  some  say,  dangerous  idolatry. 

Lastly,  as  to  Government — they  have  plainly  sepa- 
rated themselves  both  from  the  ancient  and  present 
Catholic  Church,  and  all  other  particular  Churches  ; 
by  usurping  a  dominion,  condemned  by  the  ancient, 
and  that  cannot  be  owned,  without  betraying  the 
liberty  of  the  present  Church ;  by  exerting  this  usur- 
pation in  unlawful  and  unreasonable  conditions  of 
communion  ;  and  as  it  is  said,  by  excommunicating 
for  non-obedience  to  these  impositions,  not  only  the 
Church  of  England,  but  three  parts  of  the  Christian 
world. 

The  proof,  on  both  sides,  we  are  to  expect  in  due 
place. 


SECTION  IV. 

THE   CONDITIONS   OF   SCHISM— CAUSELESS- 
VOLUNTARY. 

Condition  ^11  HE  fourth  and  last  thing  considerable  in  the 
J-  definition,  is  the  condition,  which  adds  the  guilt 
and  formality  of  Schism  to  separation — which  is  two- 
fold ;  it  must  be  causeless  and  voluntary. 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  1 5 

(1)  It  must  be  voluntary  separation,  or  denial  of  Voluntary. 
communion.      But   of  this,    I    shall    say    nothing ;  a 
greater  man  received  a  check  from  his  Romish  adver- 
saries for  the  proof  of  it,   saying,  '  Who  knows  not 

that  every  sin  is  voluntary  ? l ' 

(2)  It  must  be  causeless,  or  as  it  is  usually  ex-  Causeless. 
pressed,  without  sufficient  cause.  It  is  a  rule  generally 
allowed,  that  the  cause  makes  the  Schism — i.  e.  if  the 
Church  give  cause  of  separation,  there  is  the  Schism ; 

if  not,  the  cause  of  Schism  is  in  the  separatist ;  and 
consequently,  where  the  cause  is  found,  there  the 
charge  of  schism  resteth. 

I  know,  it  is  said,  that  there  cannot  be  sufficient 
cause  of  separation  from  the  true  Church  ;  and  there- 
fore this  condition  is  needless  :  but  they  ever  mean 
by  the  true  Church,  the  Catholic  Church. 

It  is  granted,  the  Catholic  Church  cannot  be  sup- 
posed to  give  such  cause ;  she  being  the  ordinary 
2 pillar  of  Truth,  wherein  the  3  means  of  salvation  can 
be  only  found ;  therefore  we  rarely  meet  with  any 
such  condition,  in  the  definitions  of  Schism,  given  by 
the  Fathers  of  the  ancient  Church  ;  because  they  had 
to  deal  with  Schisms  of  that  kind,  that  separated 
from  the  whole  Church. 

But  hence  to  infer  that  we  cannot  have  just  cause 
to  separate  from  the  Church  of  Eome,  will  be  found 
bad  logic. 

1  S.  W.  [i.  e.  William  Sergeant,  whose  exceptions  to  Bram- 
hall's  'Just  Vindication'  are  answered  by  the  archbishop  in  an 
Appendix  to  his  '  Replication  to  the  Bishop  of  Chalcedon.'  He  also 
assailed  Dr  Hammond,  who  replied  in  '  An  Answer  to  Schism  Dis- 
armed'.] 

2  [1  Tim.  Hi.  15.]  3  [Acts  ii.  47.] 


16  DEFINITION.  [CIIAI-   I. 

However,  if  we  could  grant  this  condition  to  be 
needless,  it  cannot  be  denied  to  be  true;  and  the  law- 
fulness of  separation  for  just  cause  is  an  eternal 
verity  ;  and  if  the  cause  be  supposed  just  cannot  be 
said  to  be  unjust,  seeing  there  cannot  be  supposed  a 
sufficient  cause  of  sin ;  the  act  is  justified  while  it  is 
condemned. 

Besides  it  is  not  questioned  by  our  adversaries, 
but  there  may  be  sufficient  cause  of  separation  from 
a  particular  Church :  then  if  at  last  we  find,  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  no  more,  there  is  more  than 
reason  to  admit  this  condition  in  the  present  con- 
troversy. 

But  the  cause  must  not  be  pretended  to  effect, 
beyond  its  influence  or  sufficiency  ;  therefore  none 
may  be  allowed  to  deny  communion  with  a  Church 
farther  than  he  hath  cause ;  for  beyond  its  activity, 
that  which  is  said  to  be  a  cause  is  no  cause. 

Hence  we  admit  the  distinction  of  partial  and 
total  separation,  and  that  known  rule,  that  we  may 
not  totally  separate  from  a  true  Church,  and  only  so 
far  as  we  cannot  communicate  without  sin. 

The  reason  is  evident,  because  the  truth  and 
very  being  of  a  Christian  Church  implieth  something 
wherein  every  Christian  Church,  in  the  very  foundation 
and  being  of  it,  hath  an  agreement  both  of  union 
and  communion. 

Far  be  it  from  us,  therefore,  to  deny  all  kind  of 
communion  with  any  Christian  Church  ;  yea  we  frankly 
and  openly  declare,  that  we  still  retain  communion, 
out  of  fraternal  charity,  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  so 
far  as  she  is  a  true  Church  ;  only  protesting  against 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  17 

her  usurpations,  and  reforming  ourselves  from  those 
corruptions  of  Faith  and  Worship,  of  which  Rome  is 
too  fond,  and  consequently  the  more  guilty. 


SECTION    V. 

THE  APPLICATION  OF  SCHISM.— NOT  TO  OUR 
CHURCH. 

IF  this  definition  of  Schism  be  not  applicable  to  the 
Church  of  England,  she  is  unjustly  charged  with 
the  guilt  of  Schism.  If  the  Church  of  England  doth 
not  voluntarily  divide  in  or  from  the  Catholic  Church, 
or  any  particular  Church,  either  by  separation  from, 
or  denying  communion  with  it,  much  less  by  setting 
another  altar  against  it  without  sufficient  cause,  then 
the  definition  of  Schism  is  not  applicable  to  the 
Church  of  England. 

But  she  hath  not  thus  divided,  whether  we  respect 
the  act  or  the  came. 

With  respect  to  the  act,  viz.  Division — we  argue,        I. 

In  the  Act. 

if  the  Church  of  England  be  the  same  for  substance 
since  the  Reformation,  that  it  was  before,  then  by  the 
Reformation  we  have  made  no  such  division  :  for  we 
have  divided  from  no  other  Church  further  than  we 
have  from  our  own,  as  it  was  before  the  Reformation, 
(as  our  adversaries  grant) ;  and  therefore  if  we  are 
now  the  same  Church  as  to  substance  that  we  were 
before,  we  hold  the  same  communion,  for  substance 
or  essentials,  with  every  other  Church  now.  that  we 
did  before. 

But,  for  substance,  we  have  the  same  Faith,  the 
2 


]  8  DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  I. 

same  Worship,  the  same  Government  now,  that  we 
had  before  the  Reformation,  and  indeed  from  our  first 
conversion  to  Christianity. 

Indeed,  the  modern  Romanists  have  made  new 
essentials  in  the  Christian  Religion,  and  determine 
their  additions  to  be  such : — but  so  weeds  are  of  the 
essence  of  a  garden,  and  botches  of  the  essence  of  a 
man. 

We  have  the  same  Creed  to  a  word,  and  in  the 
same  sense,  by  which  all  the  primitive  Fathers  were 
saved  ;  which  they  held  to  be  so  sufficient,  that  in  a 
General1  Council,  they  did  forbid  all  persons  (under 
pain  of  deposition  to  bishops  and  clerks,  and  anathe- 
matization to  lay-men)  to  compose  or  obtrude  upon 
any  persons  converted  from  Paganism  or  Judaism 
[another  confession  of  Faith]. 

We  retain  the  same  Sacraments  and  discipline ; 
we  derive  our  holy  Orders  by  lineal  succession  from 
them.  "  It  is  not  we  who  have  forsaken  the  essence 
of  the  modern  Roman  Church  by  subtraction  (or 
rather  reformation),  but  they  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
who  have  forsaken  the  essence  of  the  ancient  Roman 
Church  by  additions,"  as  a  learned  man  observes2. 

The  plain  truth  is  this,  the  Church  of  Rome  hath 
had  long  and  much  reverence  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  and  thereby  we  were  by  little  and  little  drawn 

1  Concil.  Ephes.  Act.  vi.  [apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  in.  689,  A : 
Toiiy  8t  ToA/ioJiras  rj  <rwridevai  iriarriv  trepav,  rjyovv  irpOKOftifct*,  tj 
7Tpocr(pfptiv  rots  (SfXovaiv  fniarrpffpfiv  tls  (Triyvaxriv  TTJS  a\r)6elas,  77  e'£ 
(\Xrjv t<7 fioO,  r)  (£  touSai'cr/ioO,  17  «£  aipt(rea>s  olaadrjTTOTovv'  TOVTOVS  ft  fj.ev 
fifv  fnifrKonoi  TJ  K\T)piKo\,  aXXorplovs  flvai  rovs  (irurKOTrovs  TIJS  fTTKTKo- 
irfis,  KOI  TOVS  K\r)piKovs  TOV  tcXjpov-  el  8(  XaiVot  flev,  avaQ(^ari^((T6ai..~\ 
2  [Bramhall,  Replication  to  the  Bp.  of  Chalcedon,  Vol.  11.  p.  39.] 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  19 

along  with  her  into  many  gross  errors  and  superstitions 
both  in  Faith  and  Worship,  and  at  last  had  almost 
lost  our  liberty  in  point  of  Government.  But  that 
Church  refusing  to  reform,  and  proceeding  still  fur- 
ther to  usurp  upon  us,  we  threw  off  the  usurpation 
first,  and  afterwards  very  deliberately  reformed  our- 
selves from  all  the  corruptions  that  had  been  growing 
upon  us,  and  had  almost  overgrown  both  our  Faith 
and  Worship.  If  this  be  to  divide  the  Church,  we 
are  indeed  guilty — not  else. 

But  we  had  '  no  power '  to  reform  ourselves  :  here 
indeed  is  the  main  hinge  of  the  controversy.  But 
we  have  some  l  concessions  from  our  worst  and  fiercest 
adversaries,  that  a  national  Church  hath  power  of 
herself  to  reform  abuses  in  lesser  matters,  provided 
she  alter  nothing  in  the  Faith  and  Sacraments  without 
the  Pope :  and  we  have  declared  before,  that  we  have 
made  no  alteration  in  the  essentials  of  Religion. 

But  '  we  brake  ourselves  off  from  the  papal  autho- 
rity, and  divided  ourselves  from  our  lawful  governors.' 
It  is  confessed  the  papal  authority  we  do  renounce, 
but  not  as  a  lawful  power,  but  a  tyrannical  usurpa- 
tion :  and  if  that  be  proved,  where  is  our  Schism  ? 

But  this  reminds  us  of  the  second  thing  in  the  _,  n- 

The  cause. 

definition  of  Schism,  the  Cause :  for  what  interpreta- 
tion soever  be  put  upon  the  action,  whether  reforma- 
tion or  division  and  separation,  it  is  not  material,  if  it 
be  found  we  had  sufficient  cause ;  and  no  doubt  we 
had,  if  we  had  reason  from  the  lapsed  state  and 
nature  of  our  corruptions  to  reform  ;  and  if  we  had 

1  [Cf.  Bossuet,  Defensio  Decl.  Cleri.  Gallican,  Lib.  in.  c.  2.] 

2 2 


20  DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  I. 

sufficient  authority  without  the  Pope  to  reform  our- 
selves. But  we  had  both,  as  will  be  evident  at  last. 

Both  these  we  undertake  for  satisfaction  to  the 
Catholic  Church ;  but  in  defence  of  our  own  Church 
against  the  charge  of  Schism  by  and  from  the  Church 
of  Rome,  one  of  them,  yea,  either  of  them  is  sufficient. 

For  if  the  pretended  authority  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  over  the  Church  of  England  be  ill  grounded, 
how  can  our  actions  fall  under  their  censure  ?  Espe- 
cially seeing  the  great  and  almost  only  matter  of  their 
censure  is  plainly  our  disobedience  to  that  ill  ground- 
ed authority. 

Again,  however  their  claim  and  title  stand  or  fall, 
if  we  have  or  had  cause  to  deny  that  communion 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  requires,  though  they  have 
power  to  accuse  us,  our  cause  being  good  will  acquit 
us  from  the  guilt,  and  consequently  the  charge,  of 
Schism. 

Here  then  we  must  join  issue  : — we  deny  the  pre- 
tended power  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  England, 
and  plead  the  justness  of  our  own  Reformation  in  all 
the  particulars  of  it. 


SECTION  VI. 
THE   CHARGE   AS  LAID   BY   THE   ROMANISTS. 


will  the  better  appear  by  the  indictment  of 
Schism  drawn  up  against  us  by  our  adversaries. 
I  shall  receive  it  as  it  is  expressed  by  one  of  the 
sharpest  pens,  and  in  the  fullest  and  closest  manner 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  21 

I  have  met  with,  viz.  Cardinal  Perron  against  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  thus1 — 

"  Protestants  have  made  this  rent  or  schism  by 
their  obstinate  and  pertinacious  maintaining  erroneous 
doctrines,  contrary  to  the  faith  of  Roman  or  Catholic 
Church ;  by  their  rejecting  the  authority  of  their 
lawful  ecclesiastical  superiors,  both  immediate  and 
mediate ;  by  aggregating  themselves  into  a  separate 
body  or  company  of  pretended  Christians,  indepen- 
dent of  any  pastors  at  all,  that  were  in  lawful  and 
quiet  possession  of  jurisdiction  over  them;  by  making 
themselves  pastors  and  teachers  of  others,  and  admi- 
nistering Sacraments  without  authority  given  them 
by  any  that  were  lawfully  impowered  to  give  it;  by 
instituting  new  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  their  own  in 
matters  of  Religion,  contrary  to  those  anciently  re- 
ceived throughout  all  Christendom ;  by  violently  ex- 
cluding and  dispossessing  other  prelates  of  and  from 
their  respective  sees,  cures,  and  benefices ;  and  in- 
truding themselves  into  their  places,  in  every  nation 
where  they  could  get  footing."  A  foul  charge  indeed, 
and  the  fouler  because  in  many  things  false.  How- 
ever, at  present  we  have  reason  only  to  observe  the 
foundation  of  all  lies  in  our  disobedience  and  denying 
communion  with  the  Church  of  Rome;  all  the  rest 
either  concerns  the  grounds,  or  manner,  or  conse- 
quences of  that. 

Therefore,  if  it  appear  at  last  that  the  Church  of 

i  [The  Editor  has  not  been  able  to  find  any  treatise  correspond- 
ing to  this  description.  The  Rejoinder  of  Du  Perron  to  King 
James's  Reply  (CEuvres  du  Cardinal  du  Perron,  Tome  II.  a  Paris, 
1622)  abounds  in  charges  substantially  tho  same.] 


22 


DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  I. 


England  is  independent  on  the  Church  of  Home,  and 
oweth  her  no  such  obedience  as  she  requires,  the 
charge  of  Schism  removes  from  us  and  recoils  upon 
the  Church  or  court  of  Home,  from  her  unjust  usur- 
pations and  impositions ;  and  that  with  the  aggrava- 
tion of  sedition  too  in  all  such,  whether  prelates  or 
priests,  as  then  refused  to  acknowledge  and  obey  the 
just  power  and  laws  of  this  land,  or  that  continue  in 
the  same  disobedience  at  this  day. 


SECTION    VII. 

THE   CHARGE   OF   SCHISM  RETORTED   UPON   THE 

ROMANISTS.     THE   CONTROVERSY  TO 

TWO  POINTS. 

IT  is  well  noted  by  a  learned  man,  that  while  the 
papal  authority  is  under  contest,  "  the  question  is 
not  barely  this,  Whether  the  Church  of  England  be 
schismatical  or  no? — for  a  Romanist  may  cheaply 
debate  that  and  keep  himself  safe,  whatsoever  be- 
comes of  the  umpirage — but  indifferently  and  equally, 
whether  we,  or  the  Romanist  be  thus  guilty,  or  which 
is  the  schismatic  that  lies  under  all  those  severe  cen- 
sures of  the  Scriptures  and  Fathers1,"  the  Church  of 
England,  or  her  revolters  and  the  court  of  Rome. 

Till  they  have  better  answered  to  the  indictment 
than  yet  they  have  done,  we  do  and  shall  lay  the 
most  horrid  Schism  at  the  door  of  the  Church  or 
court  of  Rome ;  for  that  they  have  voluntarily  divided 
the  Catholic  Church,  both  in  Faith,  Worship,  and  Go- 

1  Dr  Hammond  [Answer  to  Schism  Disarmed,  chap.  iii.  s.  i. : 
Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  67]. 


CHAP.  I.]  DEFINITION.  23 

vernment,  by  their  innovations ;  and  excommunicated 
and  damned  not  only  the  Church  of  England,  but  (as 
some  account)  three  parts  of  the  Christian  Church, 
most  uncharitably  and  without  all  authority  or  just 
cause,  to  the  scandal  of  the  whole  world. 

But  we  shall  lay  the  charge  more  particularly,  as 
it  is  drawn  up  by  Archbishop  Bramhall1.  "The 
Church  of  Rome,"  saith  he,  "  or  rather  the  Pope  and 
the  court  of  Rome,  are  causally  guilty,  both  of  this 
Schism,  and  almost  all  other  Schisms  in  the  Church. 
First,  by  seeking  to  a  higher  place  and  power  in  the 
body  ecclesiastical  than  of  right  is  due  unto  them. 
Secondly,  by  separating,  both  by  their  doctrines  and 
censures,  three  parts  of  the  Christian  world  from  their 
Communion,  and  as  much  as  in  them  lies,  from  the 
Communion  of  Christ.  Thirdly,  by  rebelling  against 
General  Councils.  Lastly,  by  breaking  or  taking  away 
all  the  lines  of  apostolical  succession  except  their  own ;" 
and  appropriating  all  original  jurisdiction  to  them- 
selves. And  that  which  draws  sedition  and  rebellion, 
as  the  great  aggravation  of  their  Schism,  they  chal- 
lenge a  temporal  power  over  princes,  either  directly 
or  indirectly. 

Thus  their  charge  against  us  is  disobedience ;  our 
charge  against  them  is  usurpation  and  abuse  of  power. 
If  we  owe  no  such  obedience,  or  if  we  have  cause  not 
to  obey,  we  are  acquitted.  If  the  Pope  have  both 
power  and  reason  of  his  side,  we  are  guilty.  If  he 
fail  in  either,  the  whole  weight  of  Schism,  with  all  its 
dreadful  consequences,  remains  upon  him  or  the  court 
of  Rome. 
-'  [Just  Vindication,  chap.  viii. ;  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  246;  ed.  1842.] 


24  DEFINITION.  [CHAP.  I. 

THE    CONCLUSION. 

THUS  we  see  the  controversy  is  broken  into  two 
great  points : 

(1)  Touching  the  Papal  Authority  in  England. 

(2)  Touching  the  cause  of  our  denying  Commu- 
nion, in  some  things,  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  re- 
quired by  that  authority1. 

Each  of  these  I  design  to  be  the  matter  of  a  dis- 
tinct treatise. 

This  ^rst  book  therefore  is  to  try  the  title  betwixt 
^ne  pOpe  an(j  the  Church  of  England :  wherein  we 
shall  endeavour  impartially  to  examine  all  the  pleas 
and  evidences,  produced  and  urged  by  Romanists  on 
their  master's  behalf,  and  shew  how  they  are  answered. 
And  where  there  appears  greatest  weight  and  stress 
of  argument,  we  shall  be  sure  to  give  the  greatest 
diligence ;  omitting  nothing  but  unconcluding  imper- 
tinencies,  and  handling  nothing  lightly  but  colours 
and  shadows  that  will  bear  no  other. 

** 

Now  to  our  work. 

1  [This  second  design  of  the  author  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  executed.  See  the  list  of  his  works  in  the  '  Introductory 
Notice.*] 


CHAPTER  II. 

AN   EXAMINATION   OF  THE    PAPAL   AUTHORITY 
IN  ENGLAND.    FIVE  ARGUMENTS  PROPOSED, 
AND  BRIEFLY   REFLECTED  ON. 


is  their  Goliah,  and  indeed  their  whole  army  : 
J-  if  we  rout  them  here,  the  day  is  our  own ;  and 
we  shall  find  nothing  more  to  oppose  us,  but  skir- 
mishes of  wit,  or  (when  they  are  at  their  wits'  end) 
fraud  and  force, — as  I  am  troubled  to  observe,  their 
use  hath  been. 

For  if  the  see  of  Rome  hath  no  just  claim  or  title 
to  govern  us,  we  cannot  be  obliged  to  obey  it :  and 
consequently  these  two  things  stand  evident  in  the 
light  of  the  whole  world.  We  are  no  schismatics, 
though  we  deny  obedience  to  the  see  of  Rome,  see- 
ing it  cannot  justly  challenge  it.  Secondly,  though 
we  were  so,  yet  the  see  of  Rome  hath  no  power  to 
censure  us,  that  hath  no  power  to  govern  us.  And 
hereafter  we  shall  have  occasion  further  to  conclude, 
that  the  papal  authority — that  hath  nothing  to  do  with 
the  English  Church,  and  yet  rigorously  exacts  our 
obedience,  and  censures  us  for  our  disobedience — is 
highly  guilty,  both  of  ambition  in  its  unjust  claim,  and 
of  tyranny  in  unjust  execution  of  an  usurped  power, 
as  well  in  her  commands  as  censures :  which  is  cer- 
tainly Schism,  and  aliquid  amplius. 

They  of  the  Church  of  Rome  do  therefore  mightily 
bestir  themselves  to  make  good  their  claim ;  without 


26  PAPAL  AUTHORITY.  [CHAP.  II. 

which  they  know,  they  can  never  hope  either  to  gain 
us,  or  secure  themselves. 

I  find  five  several  titles  pretended,  though  me- 
thinks  the  power  of  that  Church  should 'be  built  but 
upon  one  Eock. 

1.  Con-  I      The  Pope  being  the  means  of  our  first  con- 
version. 

version  (as  they  say)  did  thereby  acquire  a  right  for 
himself  and  successors,  to  govern  this  Church. 

2.  Patri-  II.    England  belongs  to  the  Western  Patriarchate ; 

and  the  Pope  is  the  Patriarch  of  the  West  (as  they 
would  have  it). 

3.  Pre-  III.      Others  found  his  right  in  Prescription  and 

scription. 

long  continued  possession  before  the  Reformation. 

4.  infalli-          IV.      Others  flee   much  higher,   and  derive   this 

power  of  Government  from  the  infallibility  of  the 
Governor ;  and  indeed  who  would  not  be  led  by  an 
unerring  guide  ? 

n.  Succes-  V.  But  their  strong  hold,  to  which  at  last  resort 
is  still  made,  is  the  Pope's  universal  Pastorship,  as 
successor  to  St  Peter  and  supreme  Governor  not  of 
Rome  and  England  only,  but  of  the  whole  Christian 
world. 

Before  we  enter  upon  trial  of  these  severally,  we 
shall  briefly  note,  that  where  there  are  many  titles 
pretended,  right  is  justly  suspected,  especially  if  the 
pretences  be  inconsistent. 

(1)  Now,  how  can  the  Pope,  as  the  Western  Pa- 
triarch, or  as  our  first  Converter,  pretend  to  be  our 
Governor ;  and  yet  at  the  same  time  pretend  himself 
to  be  universal  Bishop  ?  These  some  of  our  subtlest 
adversaries  know  to  imply  a  contradiction,  and  to  de- 
stroy one  another. 


sion. 


CHAP.  II.]  PAPAL  AUTHORITY.  27 

(2)  At  first  sight  therefore,  there  is  a  necessity 
on  those  that  assert  the  universal  Pastorship,  to  waive 
the  arguments,  either  from  the  right  of  conversion,  or 
the  Western  Patriarchate :  or  if  any  of  them  will  be 
so  bold  as  to  insist  on  these,  he  may  not  think  the 
chair  of  St  Peter  shall  be  his  sanctuary  at  a  dead 
lift. 

(3)  Also  for  Possession,  what  need  that  be  pleaded, 
if  the  right  be  evident  ?     Possession  of  a  part  if  the 
right  be  universal ; — unless  by  England  the  Pope  took 
livery  and  seizin  for  the  whole  world.     Besides,  if  this 
be  a  good  plea,  it  is  as  good  for  us, — we  have  it  and 
have  had  it  time  out  of  mind ;  if  ours  have  not  been 
quiet,  so  neither  was  theirs  before  the  Reformation. 

(4)  For  Infallibility — that  is  but  a  qualification, 
no  commission :  fitness  sure  gives  no  authority ;  nor 
desert  a  title,  and  that  by  their  own  law.      Otherwise 
they  must  acknowledge  the  Bishops  of  our  Church, 
that  are  known  to  be  as  learned  and  holy  as  theirs, 
are  as  good  and  lawful  Bishops,  as  any  the  Church  of 
Rome  hath. 

Thus  we  see  where  the  burthen  will  rest  at  last ; 
and  that  the  Romanists  are  forced  into  one  only  hold. 
One  great  thing  concerns  them  to  make  sure,  or  all 
is  lost.  The  whole  controversy  is  tied  to  St  Peter's 
chair  ;  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  must  be  maintained, 
or  the  Roman  and  Catholic  are  severed,  as  much  as 
the  Church  of  England  and  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  and 
a  great  breach  is  made  indeed,  but  we  are  not  found 
the  schismatics. 

But  this  is  beside  my  task.  Lest  we  should  seem 
to  endeavour  an  escape  at  any  breach,  all  the  said 


28  PAPAL   AUTHORITY.  [CHAP.  II. 

five  pleas  of  the  Romanists  shall  be  particularly  exa- 
mined, and  the  main  arguments  and  answers  on  both 
sides  faithfully,  and  exactly  as  I  can,  produced ;  and 
where  the  controversy  sticks,  and  how  it  stands  at 
this  day,  noted  ;  as  before  we  promised. 


CHAPTER  III. 

OF  THE  POPE'S  CLAIM  TO  ENGLAND  FROM  OUR 
CONVERSION— ELEUTHERIUS— GREGORY. 


argument  is  not  pressed  with  much  confidence 
J  in  print,  though  with  very  much  in  discourse,  to 
my  own  knowledge.  Perhaps  it  is  rather  popular  and 
plausible  than  invincible. 

Besides,  it  stands  in  bar  against  the  right  of  St 
Peter,  which  they  say  was  good,  near  six  hundred 
years  before ;  and  extends  to  very  many  Churches, 
that  received  grace  neither  by  the  means  of  St  Peter 
or  his  pretender  successor  : — except  they  plead  a  right 
to  the  whole  Church  first,  and  to  a  part  afterwards ; 
or  one  kind  of  right  to  the  whole,  and  another  to  a 
part. 

The  truth  is,  if  any  learned  Komanist  shall  insist 
on  this  argument  in  earnest,  he  is  strongly  suspected, 
either  to  deny  or  question  the  right  of  St  Peter's 
successor,  as  universal  Pastor1. 

But  we  leave  these  advantages,  to  give  the  argu- 
ment its  full  liberty  ;  and  we  shall  soon  see  either  its 
arms  or  its  heels. 

The  argument  must  run  thus :  If  tlie  Bishop  of 
Rome  was  the  means  of  the  English  Church's  conversion, 

1  [The  plea  of  conversion  has  been  revived  in  our  own  time  by 
writers  in  the  '  Dublin  Review.'  For  a  refutation  of  their  argu- 
ments see  Mr  Palmer's  '  Apostolical  Jurisdiction  and  Succession  of 
the  Episcopacy  in  the  British  Churches,'  sect,  xiii.] 


30  CONVERSION.  [CHAV.  III. 

then  the  English  Church  oweth  obedience  to  him  and  his 
successors. 

We  deny  both  propositions — the  minor,  that  the 
Pope  was  the  means  of  our  first  conversion ;  and  the 
consequence  of  the  major,  that  if  he  had  been  so,  it 
would  not  follow  that  we  now  owe  obedience  to  that 
see. 

For  the  minor,  Bishop  Jewel  knocked  it  down 
so  perfectly  at  first,  it  was  never  able  to  stand  since  : 
he  saith,  "  It  is  certain  the  Church *  of  Britain  now 
called  England,  received  not  first  the  faith  from 
Rome2." 

The  Romanist's  proof  is  his  bare  assertion,  '  that 
Eleutherius  the  Pope  was  the  first  Apostle  of  the 
Britains,  and  preached  the  Faith  here  by  Damianus  and 
Fugatius  within  little  more  than  one  hundred  years 
after  Christ's  death.'  Bishop  Jewel  answers3,  '  that  king 

1  [In  a  side-note,  Fullwood  makes  the  following  addition  :  "We 
were  converted  nine  years  before  Rome.     Baron,  ad  an.  35,  n.  5  et 
marg.  et  ad  an.  39,  n.  23 :  et  Suarez,  adv.  Angl.  Sect.  Error.  Lib.  i. 
c.  i." — Both  these  writers  ascribe  the  foundation  of  the  British  Church 
to  Joseph  of  Arimathsea ;  and  Baronius  places  the  event  in  the  year 
35.     The  Church  of  Rome,  according  to  the  same  authority,  was 
founded  A.  D.  45.     A  passage  in  the  History  of  Gildas  (c.  vi.  apud 
Scriptores  xv.)  asserts  that  the  Gospel  was  introduced  into  Britain 
"  tempore  summo  Tiberii  Csesaris."] 

2  [Defence  of  the  Apology,  p.  12:  ed.  1570.] 

3  [Ibid.     The  various  accounts  respecting  the   conversion   of 
Britain   may  be   seen   in   Spelman,  Concil.  Tom.  i.   'Apparatus.' 
Parker,  Camden,  Ussher,  Stillingfleet,  Cave,  and  Godwin  ascribe 
the  foundation  of  the  British  Church  to  St  Paul,  in  the  interval 
between  his  first  and  second  imprisonment.     Mr  Williams  ('  Eccle- 
siastical Antiquities  of  the  Cymry,'  pp.  51,  et  seqq.)  has  recently  ad- 
vocated the  view  that  Christianity  was  introduced,  about  A.I).  58,  by 
Bran,  father  of  Caradog  (or  Caractacus),  who  was  detained  at  Rome 
seven  years  as  hostage  for  his  son  ] 


CHAP.  III.]  CONVERSION.  31 

Lucius  was  baptized  well  near  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  before  the  Emperor  Constantine ;  and  the  same 
Constantine,  the  first  christened  emperor,  was  born  in 
this  island :  and  the  Faith  had  been  planted  here  long 
before,  either  by  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  or  Simon 
Zelotes,  or  the  Greeks,  or  some  others ;'  which  is 
plain,  because  the  king,  being  Christian  before,  re- 
quested Pope  Eleutherius  to  send  hither  those  per- 
sons, Damianus  and  Fugatius,  to  reform  the  bishops 
and  clergy  which  were  here  before  ;  and  to  put  things 
into  better  order1. 

They  also  urged,  that  '  as  Pope  Eleutherius  in 
Britain,  so  Saint  Gregory,  in  England,  first  planted 
the  Faith  by  Austin.' 

But  Bishop  Jewel  at  first  dashed  this  argument  *•£•  |io. 
out  of  countenance  ;  plainly  proving  out  of  Tertullian,  A-D- 1^4- 

A.D.  OOU. 

Origen,  Athanasius,  Constantinus  the  emperor,  Chry-  A-D- |M. 

A-l).   tJu/  • 

sostom,  Theodoret,  that  the  Faith  was  planted  in 
England  long  before  Austin's  coming  hither2. 

Some  would  reply,  that  '  the  Faith  was  utterly 
rooted  out  again  upon  the  invasion  of  heathen 
English.'  It  was  not  so,  saith  he,  "for  Beda  saith 
the  queen  of  England  was  then  christened ;  and  that 

1  [There  is  now  extant  no  copy  of  the  letter  which  king  Lucius 
is  said  to  have  sent  to  Eleutherius.     Bede's  mention  of  the  circum- 
stance is  as  follows :  "  Misit  ad  eum  Lucius  Brittaniarum  rex  epi- 
stolam,  obsecrans  ut  per  ejus  mandatum  Christianus  efficeretur." 
Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  c.  iv.     According  to  Bp  Pearson  (Minor  Theolo- 
gical works,  Vol.   ii.   p.  409)  this  notice  is  transcribed  from  the 
'  Liber  Pontificalis.'     The  whole  transaction  is  much  amplified  by 
Matthew  of  Westminster,  ad  an.  185 — On  the  reply  attributed  to 
Eleutherius,  see  the  '  Animadversiones'  in  Spelman,  Concil.  Tom.  i. 
pp.  35,  36.] 

2  See  his  Defence  of  his  Apology,  p.  13. 


32  CONVERSION.  [CHAP.  III. 

there  were  then  in  this  realm  seven  bishops,  and  one 
archbishop,  with  other  more  great  learned  Christian 
men1."  And  Galfridus  saith,  "There  were  then  in 
England  seven  bishoprics,  and  one  archbishopric, 
possessed  with  very  many  godly  prelates,  and  many 
abbeys  in  which  the  Lord's  flock  held  the  right 
religion2." 

Yet  we  gratefully  acknowledge  that  Saint  Gre- 
gory was  a  special  instrument  of  God  for  the  further 
spreading  and  establishing  the  Gospel  in  England ; 
and  that  both  Eleutherius  and  this  Gregory  seem  to 
have  been  very  good  men,  and  great  examples  both 
of  piety  and  charity  to  all  their  successors  in  that 
see ;  and  indeed  of  a  truly  apostolical  spirit  and  care, 
though  not  of  authority: — but  if  all  history  deceive  us 
not,  that  Austin  the  monk  was  far  enough  from  being 
Saint  Augustine. 

But  what  if  it  had  been  otherwise,  and  we  were 
indeed  first  converted  by  the  means  of  these  popes ; 
will  it  therefore  follow,  that  we  ought  ever  to  be  sub- 
ject to  the  papacy  ?  This  is  certainly  a  non-sequitur, 
only  fit  to  be  imposed  upon  easy  and  prepared  under- 
standings :  it  can  never  bear  the  stress  and  brunt  of 
a  severe  disputation ;  and  indeed  the  Roman  adver- 
saries do  more  than  seem  to  acknowledge  as  much. 

However,  the  great  Archbishop  and  Primate  of 
Armagh  hath  slurred  that  silly  consequence  with  such 
arguments  as  find  no  answer.  I  refer  the  reader,  if 
need  be,  to  his  Just  Vindication3,  pp.  131, 132.  Where 

1  [Defence  of  the  Apology,  p.  14.] 

2  [Lib.  viii.  c.  4,  quoted  by  Bp  Jewel,  ubi  supra.] 

3  [Vol.  i.  p.  266;  ed.  1842.] 


CHAP.  III.]  CONVERSION.  33 

he  hath  proved  beyond  dispute  that  Conversion  gives 
no  title  of  jurisdiction ;  and  more  especially  to  the 
prejudice  of  a  former  owner  dispossessed  by  violence, 
or  to  the  subjecting  of  a  free  nation  to  a  foreign 
prelate  without  or  beyond  their  own  consent. 

Besides,  in  more  probability,  the  Britains  were 
first  converted  by  the  Eastern1  Church  (as  appeared 
by  our  ancient  customs) ;  yet  never  were  subject  to 
any  Eastern  patriarch.  And  sundry  of  our  English 
and  British  Bishops  have  converted2  foreign  nations, 
yet  never  pretended  thence  to  any  jurisdiction  over 
them. 

Lastly,  whatever  title  Saint  Gregory  might  ac- 
quire by  his  deserts  from  us,  [it]  was  merely  personal, 
and  could  not  descend  to  his  successors. 

But  no  more  of  this,  for  fear  of  the  scoffing 
rebukes  of  such  as  S.  W.,  who  together  with  the 
'  Catholic  Gentleman,'  do  plainly  renounce  this  plea : 
asking  Doctor  Hammond3  with  some  shew  of  scorn, 
'What  Catholic  author  ever  affirmed  it'  ?  There  is  no 
doubt — though  some  other  Romanists  have  insisted 
upon  this  argument  of  Conversion — some  reason  why 
these  should  think  fit  to  lay  it  aside ;  and  we  have  no 
reason  to  keep  it  up,  having  otherwise  work  enough 
upon  our  hands. 

An  end  therefore  of  this  first  plea. 

1  [Cf.  Twysden's  Historical  Vindication,  p.  9.] 

2  [See  Dr  Grant's  '  Missions  to  the  Heathen,'  pp.  109 — 111.] 

3  [Hammond's  Answer  to  '  Schism  Disarmed,'  chap.  v.  sect.  i.  ; 
Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  102 ;  ed.  1684.] 


CHAPTER  IV. 

OF  THE  POPE'S  SUPPOSED  CLAIM  AS 
PATRIARCH. 


THIS  point  admits  likewise  of  a  quick   dispatch, 
by  four  propositions  ;   and  the  rather,  for  a  reason 
you  will  find  in  the  close  of  our  discourse  upon  the 
last  of  them. 

PROP.    I. 

Tfie    Pope    was   anciently  reputed    the    Western 
Patriarch. 

To  this  dignity  he  proceeded  by  degrees.  The 
Apostles  left  no  rule  for  a  foreign  jurisdiction  from 
one  nation  to  another :  but,  according  to  the  33rd 
Canon  of  the  Apostles  (if  they  were  indeed  theirs), 
'  it  behoved  the  Bishops  of  every  nation  to  know  him, 
who  is  their  first  (or  primate),  and  to  esteem  him  as 
their  head1.' 

The  adventitious  grandeur  which  the  ancient 
Patriarchs  afterwards  obtained,  is  judged  to  arise 
three  ways ;  by  the  Canons  of  the  Fathers,  the  edicts 
of  Princes,  or  ancient  Custom. 

Upon  the  last  ground  (viz.  of  Custom,)  the  Council 
of  Nice2  settled  the  privileges  of  those  three  famous 

1  [Al.  Can.  XXXV.  Tows  eirumnrou?  (Katjrov  Wvovs  eiSeVai  xpy 
TOV  fv  avrols  TrpS>Tov,  KOI  yyelcrdat  avrov  cos  Kf(pa\^v,  K.  r.  X.  Apud 
Coteler.  Patres  Apost.  Tom.  i.  p.  442,  cd.  Antvcrp  1698.] 

2  [Can.  VI.    Ta  ap^nia  edrj  KpaTfirw,  TCI    ev  AtyvTrrw  KOI    Aifivrj   KOL 


CHAP.  IV.]  WESTERN   PATRIARCH.  35 

patriarchal  sees,  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch, 
saying,  "  Let  ancient  Customs  prevail"  ;  which  cus- 
toms proceeded  from  the  honour  such  Churches  had, 
as  being  founded  by  the  Apostles,  if  not  rather  from 
the  emineiicy  of  the  cities  :  therefore  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  1  gives  this  as  a  reason  of  the  greatness  of 
the  sees  of  Rome  and  Constantinople,  '  because  they 
were  the  seats  of  the  Emperors.' 

PROP.    II. 
The  Pope,   as  Patriarch,   had   but  a   limited  Juris-    Limited 

jurisdic- 

diction.  tion. 

(1)  A  Patriarchate,  as  such,  is  limited  ;  especially, 
if  the  title  restrain  it  to  the  West  :  for  East,  North, 
and  South,  are  not  the  West,  in  the  same  respect. 

(2)  It  is  further  evident,  from  the  first  number  of 
Patriarchs  ;  for,  if  there  were  more  than  one  of  the 
same  dignity  and  jurisdiction,  they  must  be  therefore 
limited  :  for  a  Patriarch,  as  such,  could  have  no  juris- 
diction over  a  Patriarch,  as  such  ;  for  so  they  were 
equal  ;  et  par  in  parem  non  habet  imperium. 

(3)  But  indeed,  the  first  time  we  hear  of  three, 

and  then  of  five  Patriarchs  at  once,  viz.  of  Rome,  Fiye  Patri- 

archs. 
Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  ; 

and  that  these  had  all  their  jurisdictions  limited  to 


i,  wore  TOV  'AX({-av8peias  tTriarKOTrov  jrdvrow  TOVTWV  f\fiv  TT)V 
(f-ovcriav.    (irei8f)    Kal    rw    eV    TT;   'P<ap.fl    eVtCTKOTro)  roCro    crvvrjOes  fffTiv, 

K.  T.  X.      See  Routh's  Opuscula,  Vol.  i.  p.  374,  and  note,  p.  404.] 

1  [Can.  XXVIII.  Keu  yap  TO>  dpovtp  rfjs  7rpe<r/3vrepas  'P<ap.r}s,  8ia  TO 
{iaaiXeveiv  rrjv  TroXti*  (MIVTJV  ol  Trarepfs  ewcorcos  aTToSeSaiKacrt  ra  Trpftr- 
|3e?a'  Kal  T<U  avroi  (TKOTTW  Kivovfitvoi  ol  fnarov  irevr^Kovra  6eo(pi\f(rTa- 
TOI  eV/crKorroi,  TO  «ra  Trpecr/Seta  dir(V(ip.av  TU  TTJS  veas  'Ptap.r)s  ayia>- 
rdra)  dp6va>,  K.  T.  X.  Apud  Routh.  Opuscula,  Vol.  H.  p.  69.] 

3—2 


36  WESTERN  PATRIARCH.  [CHAP.  IV. 

them,  and  no  one  of  them  had  any  thing  like  a 
universal  monarchy, — is  evident  both  from  canons  and 
history,  and  also  by  this  undeniable  observation ;  that 
several  parts  of  the  world  had  their  own  primates 
iridependent,  and  exempt  from  all  these,  in  the  height 
of  their  power :  as  Africk  at  Carthage ;  the  rest  of 
Italy  at  Milan ;  France  at  Aries,  or  Lyons ;  Germany 
at  Vienna ;  and  Britain  also  had  the  same  privilege l. 

(4)  The  sixth  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice 
saith  thus  expressly :  "  Let  ancient  Customs  prevail ; 
according  to  which,  let  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  have 
power  over  them  of  Egypt,  Lybia,  and  Pentapolis ; 
because  this  was  likewise  the  Custom  for  the  Bishop 
of  Eome ;  and  accordingly,  in  Antioch,  and  other 
provinces,  let  the  privileges  be  preserved  to  the 
Churches2." 

The  occasion  of  this  Canon  is  said  to  be  this3: 
Meletius,  a  Bishop  of  Egypt,  ordained  Bishops  and 
others  in  Egypt,  without  the  consent  of  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria.  The  case  heard  in  the  Council,  they 
pronounce  such  ordinations  null,  depose  Meletius,  and 
by  this  Canon — the  more  venerable  because  the  first 
in  such  cases — confirm  the  ancient  Customs  of  that, 
and  all  other  Churches. 

The  Eomanists  object,  'the  Council  did  not  assign 
any  limits  to  those  jurisdictions.' 

1  [Before  the  institution  of  Patriarchs  all  Metropolitans  were 
avroKf(f)a\oi.     Some  retained  this  independence  for  a  long  time, 
admitting  no  earthly  superiors  except  a  General  Council.    That  the 
British  Archbishop  of  Caerleon  was  in  this  number,  is  shewn  by 
Bingham,  Antiquities,  Book  n.  c.  xviii.  s   2.] 

2  [Vid.  supra,  p.  34,  note  2.] 

3  [See  the  particulars  in  Fleury,  Histoire  Eccles.  Liv.  XT.  s.  15.] 


CHAP.  IV.]  WESTERN   PATRIARCH.  37 

But  it  is  fully  answered,  that  the  Council  supposed  Answer, 
such  limits,  and  proceed  upon  that  supposition,  to 
allow  of  them,  and  to  enjoin  the  observation  of  them  ; 
and  that  is  so  much  the  more  than  a  present  limita- 
tion, as  it  is  a  proof  of  the  greater  antiquity  of  such 
limitation. 

Sure  Bellarmine  was  hard  put  to  it,  when  the  Objection, 
words  '  because  the  Roman  Bishop  hath  so  accus- 
tomed,' must  be  forced  to  speak  against  all  sense 
of  words,  and  scope  of  the  matter :  thus,  "  that  is," 
saith  he,  "  the  Roman  Bishop  hath  so  accustomed  to 
let  the  Alexandrian  Bishop  govern  them1." 

The  occasion  of  the  Canon  we  had  before ;  the  Answer. 
words  themselves  are  these,  'ETreiStj  KOI  Ttp  ev  Trj  'P<J/u>7 
€7Ti07co7r<w  TOVTO  avvrjOes  effTiv.  Who  but  Bellarmine 
seeth  not  that  TOVTO  awrjOe?  imports  a  like  Custom 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  the  excellent  and  learned 
Doctor  Stillingfleet2  observes  ?  The  Bishop  of  Rome 
had  such  jurisdiction  over  the  Churches  under  him ; 
and  therefore  ought  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  over 
the  Churches  under  him  :  upon  this  consideration  the 
Council  concludes,  that  so  it  should  be3. 


1  [Do  Romano  Pontifice,  Lib.  n.  c.  xiii. ;  in  Disputat.  Tom.  I.  p. 
165,  o;  ed.  Colon.  1628.] 

2  [Stillingfleet's  Rational  Account,  Vol.  n.   p.  168;   ed.   Oxf. 
1844.] 

3  [The  following  extract  will  shew  the  view  taken  of  this  Canon 
by  Nilus,  Archbishop  of  Thessalonica,  in  the  fourteenth  century : 
Ei  Se  ns  KdTfxw  ra  avrov  KOI  ras  tTtpav  irapoiKias  ddiKois  o(f>6dkp.dis 
opq,  TOVTOV  OVK  earn  [if)  KaToXvfii/  TO.  dpxaia  rS>v  Trartptov  edrj.     aXX'  6 
(cai/eoi/    oi   TOVTO   jSovXeTat,   aXXa.    Ta   ap^ata,  (prjcrlv,    (&rj  KpaTeira).    ov 
fj.fv  aXXa,  (I  fj.fv  TOT  KXi'piTa  rrjs   yrfs   cAcacrrw    TWV   Ka0o\uc£>v  (i 
8iavfv(fiT]p.tva,    <api(rp.fva>s    ovftev   two   TOV  TTJS  'Pw/iTjs   ffpovov 

aXXo  povov  avrov   TIJV  ap\T)v   t<\rj<p(vai  eXfytv   6   Kavmv,  tlicbs  fjv  BIJT 


38  WESTERN   PATRIARCH.  [CHAP.  IV. 

If  it  be  replied,  '  The  Pope  had  limits  as  a  Metro- 
politan, but  not  as  Head  of  the  Church ' ;  this  grants 
the  thing  in  present  question ;  that,  as  a  Patriarch, 
the  Pope's  jurisdiction  was  limited.  What  power  he 
had  as  Head  of  the  Church,  shall  be  examined  in  its 
due  place. 

What  power  the  Pope  had  anciently  in  confirm- 
ing, deposing  and  restoring  Patriarchs,  will  hardly  be 
found  so  ancient  as  the  Council  of  Ephesus ;  and 
indeed  was  challenged  by  him,  not  as  a  private 
Patriarch,  but  as  Head  of  the  Church  :  and  there- 
fore is  to  be  considered  under  that  head  also. 

PROP.    III. 

The  ancient  Patriarchate  of  Rome  did  not   include 
Britain. 

But,  according  to  Ruffinus1,  (a  Roman,  who  lived 
not  long  after  the  Council  of  Nice)  it  was  limited  to 
the  'suburbicary'  Cities  ;  i.e.  a  part  of  Italy,  and  their 
islands,  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and  Corsica :  much  less  did  it 
ever  pretend  to  Britain,  either  by  custom,  canon,  or 
edict  of  any  of  our  Princes. 

\oyi£fa-6cu  Travav  TTJV  oiKovfJifvrjv  VTT  avrbv  e«>at,  Kal  TOVS  Kado\iKovs 
firurKoirovs  TUKfivov  8ioiKelv  tacrnep  ra  TOV  Ka)v<rTavTivovTr6\ea>s  ol  VTT 
avTov  iepdpxai.  et  8'  e'/ceivo  fj,ev  aTrtKXrjpadr)  r<5  'Pea/Ays,  eKelvo  8e  ra> 
'Ahft-avftpdas,  TOVTO  fie  TTJS  Katva-Tavrivov,  ov  fia\\6v  ye  6  'Pmp.T)s  VTT 
exfivovs,  17  fKtlvoi  VJTO  TTJS  'Pto/iTjs,  o(ra  ye  els  TOVTO  TeKecrovcriv.  De 
Primatu  Papse  Rom.  Lib.  n.  p.  38,  ed.  Salmas.  Heidelberg.  1608.] 

1  [Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  i.  c.  6.  His  version  of  the  Nicene  Canon  is  as 
follows:  "Apud  Alexandriam  et  in  urbo  Roma  vetusta  consuetude 
servetur,  ut  ille  ^Egypti,  hie  suburbicariarum  ccclcsiarum  sollicitu- 
dinem  gerat."  That  the  suburbicary  churches  are  correctly  deter- 
mined in  the  text  is  proved  by  Bingham,  Antiquities,  Book  xi.  chap, 
i.  s.  9.  Cf.  also  Floury,  Hist.  Eccles.  Liv.  xxxv.  s.  19.] 


CHAP.  IV.]  WESTERN   PATRIARCH.  39 

Consequently,  we  say,  the  papal  power  over  us 
was  an  after-encroachment  and  usurpation,  and  a 
plain  violation  of  the  General  Council  of  Ephesus. 

Our  argument  is  this  :  The  General  Council  of 
Ephesus  declare,  '  that  no  Bishop  should  occupy  any 
province,  which  before  that  Council,  and  from  the 
beginning  had  not  been  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
him  or  his  predecessors ;  and  that  if  any  Patriarch 
usurped  any  jurisdiction  over  a  free  province,  he 
should  quit  it ;  for  so  it  pleased  the  holy  Synod,  that 
every  province  should  enjoy  its  ancient  rites,  pure 
and  inviolate1'. 

But  it  is  evident,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  no 
power  in  Britain  from  the  beginning  ;  nor  yet  before 
that  General  Council ;  nor  for  the  first  six  hundred 
years  after  Christ  (as  will  appear  when  we  speak  of 
the  next  claim,  viz.  possession). 

Now,  if  the  Pope  had  no   patriarchal  power  in  pope 
Britain  before  the  six  hundredth  year  of  Christ,  he 
could   not  well  have  any  since ;  for  Pope  Boniface2, 
three   years  after  Saint  Gregory's  death,  disclaimed 

1  [Concil.  Ephes.  Act.  vn.   This  decree  was  made  at  the  petition 
of  Regius,  bishop  of  Constantia,  hi  Cyprus,  who  complained  of  en- 
croachments on  his  own  rights  made  by  the  patriarch  of  Antioch. 
Vid.  Concil.  ed.  Labb.  Tom.  ra.  802.] 

2  [i.  e.  Boniface  III.,  who  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Rome,  A.D. 
606.     He  assumed  the  title  of '  Universal  Bishop,'  claiming  thereby 
universal  jurisdiction.     In  this  sense  the  title  had  been  condemned 
by  Gregory  the  Great,  as  blasphemous  and  antichristian.     Vid. 
Gregor.  Magni  Epist.  Lib.  vi.  ep.  xxx.  Lib.  rv.  Indict,  xiii.  ep.  xxxii. ; 
ed.  Antverp.  1615.    However,  in  the  sense  of  a  Bishop  of  the  Uni- 
versal Church,  the  title  '  (Ecumenical*  was  in  use  long  before  the 
time  of  John  of  Constantinople.     For  instances  of  its  application 
to  the  Patriarch  of  that  diocese,  see  Bingham,  Book  n.  c.  xvii. 
s.  21.] 


40  WESTERN  PATRIARCH.  [CHAP.  IV. 

this  power,  by  assuring  an  higher  title  :  so  that  had 
we  been  willing  to  admit  him  our  Patriarch,  contrary 
to  what  Augustine  found,  time  had  been  wanting  to 
settle  his  power,  as  such,  in  England. 

From  the  whole,  we  conclude,  either  the  Pope  is 
none  of  our  Patriarch ;  or  if  such,  he  stands  guilty  of 
contempt  of  a  General  Council,  and  hath  done  so 
many  hundred  years ;  i.  e.  he  is  no  Patriarch  at  all, 
or  a  schismatical  one. 

PROP.  IV. 

Incon-        To  be  a  Patriarch  and  Universal  Bishop,  in  the  sense  of 

sistentwith  ... 

Head  of  the  the  Romanist,  is  inconsistent. 

Church. 

Therefore  the  Pope  must  let  fall  his  claim  as  a 
Patriarch,  if  he  pretend  to  be  Universal  Bishop.  Thus 
the  great  Archbishop  Bramhall  reasons  wisely  and 
strongly ;  but  S.  W.  gives  no  answer  to  it,  only  that 
he  argues  "  weakly  and  sillily  V 

The  Lord  Primate  proves  the  inconsistency  by 
arguments  not  yet  answered.  The  Patriarch  (saith  he) 
"  professeth  human ",  the  Universal  Pastor  "  chal- 
lengeth  Divine  institution :  the  one  hath  a  limited 
jurisdiction  over  a  certain  province ;  the  other  pre- 
tendeth  to  an  universal  jurisdiction  over  the  whole 
world  :  the  one  is  subject  to  the  canons  of  the  Fathers, 
and  a  mere  executor  of  them,  and  can  do  nothing 
either  against,  or  besides  them ;  the  other  challengeth 
an  absolute  sovereignty  above  the  canons,  [besides  the 
canons,  against  the  canons]  to  make  them,  to  abro- 

1  [A  Reply  to  S.  W.  (i.  e.  William  Sergeant's)  Refutation : 
Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  332,  333.] 


CLAP.  IV.]  WESTERN   PATRIARCH.  41 

gate  them,  to  suspend  their  influence  by  a  non-ob- 
stante,  at  his  own  pleasure,  when  he  will,  where  he 
will,  to  whom  he  will1." 

Therefore  the  claim  of  this  absolute  power  dis- 
claimeth  the  limited ;  and  the  donation  and  accept- 
ance of  a  limited  power  convinceth  that  there  was  no 
such  absolute  power  before :  had  the  Pope  been  un- 
limited before,  by  Divine  donation,  who  can  imagine 
that  he  would  ever  have  taken  gradum  Simeonis  in 
this  sense,  by  stooping  so  low  to  receive  from  the 
hand  of  man  the  narrower  dignity  of  a  Patriarch  ? 

Besides,  it  is  fully  proved  by  Doctor  Hammond,  in  Patriarchs 
his  book  of  Schism2,  beyond  all  the  little  exceptions  civil 
of  the  Romanists  (as  more  at  large  hereafter),  that 
the  see  of  a  Patriarch  is  disposable  by  the  civil  power : 
and  therefore,  whatever  power  the  Pope  may  be 
thought  to  have  had  heretofore  in  Britain,  is  now 
lawfully  otherwise  disposed  of  by  the  kings  of  Eng- 
land ;  as  well  as  evidently  rejected  by  the  usurpation 
of  an  higher,  and  an  higher  kind  of  title,  inconsistent 
with  it ;  and  justly  forfeited  many  other  ways,  as  will 
appear  hereafter. 

But  though  our  adversaries  would  seem  to  say 
something  in  favour  of  this  title,  they  dare  not  stand 
to  it ;  as  indeed  it  is  not  convenient  they  should,  if 
they  would  save  their  head  whole.  Therefore,  after 
much  ado  to  very  little  purpose,  S.  W.3  concludes 
against  Doctor  Hammond  thus.  "  Besides,"  saith  he, 

1  [A  Reply  to   S.  W.  (i.e.   William  Sergeant's)  Refutation: 
Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  333.] 

2  [Works,  Vol.  i.  pp.  520,  521,  ed.  1684.] 

3  Schism  Disarmed,  p.  161,  [ed.  Paris.  1655.] 


42  WESTERN   PATRIARCH.  [CHAT.  IV. 

"  were  all  this  granted,  what  is  it  to  your  or  our  pur- 
pose ?  Since  we  accuse  you  not  of  Schism,  for  break- 
ing from  the  Pope's  subjection,  as  a  private  Patri- 
arch, but  as  the  chief  Pastor  and  the  Head  of  the 
Church." 

So  there  is  an  end  of  their  Second  Plea. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE    THIRD    PAPAL    CLAIM,   viz.   PRESCRIPTION, 

OR  LONG  POSSESSION.     CASE  STATED— 

THEIR  PLEA— OUR  ANSWER  IN 

THREE  PROPOSITIONS. 


FT!  HE  true  state  of  the  case  here  is  this :    It  cannot  Case 

±statei 
be  denied  but  the  Church  of  England  was  heed- 
lessly and  gradually  drawn  into  communion  with  the 
Roman  Church  in  her  additions,  superinduced  upon 
the  ancient  faith  and  worship ;  and  likewise  into  some 
degrees  of  subjection  to  Papal  jurisdiction.  And  in 
this  condition  we  had  continued  for  some  considerable 
time,  before  king  Henry  the  Eighth ;  and  that  bold 
king  (upon  what  motives  is  not  here  material)  with 
the  consent  of  his  three  estates  in  Parliament,  both 
Houses  of  the  Convocation,  and  both  the  Universities 
of  the  land,  threw  off  the  Roman  yoke,  as  a  manifest 
usurpation,  and  a  very  grievous  oppression ;  and  re- 
covered the  people  and  Church  of  England  to  their 
ancient  liberties  of  being  governed  by  their  own  do- 
mestic rulers.  Afterwards,  in  the  reigns  of  Edward 
the  Sixth,  and  queen  Elizabeth,  and  by  their  proper 
authority,  we  reformed  ourselves  by  throwing  off  the 
Roman  additions  to  our  faith  and  worship. 

Had  we  gone  about  a  Reformation  while  we  ac- 
knowledged subjection  to  the  see  of  Rome,  or  indeed 
before  we  had  renounced  it,  there  had  been  more  co- 
lour to  charge  us  with  Schism  and  disobedience :  but 
now  the  proper  question  is,  first  whether  the  state  of 


44  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  V. 

England  did  then  justly  reject  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Pope  in  England ;  and  only  consequently,  whether  we 
did  afterwards  lawfully  reform  without  him.  The 
cause  of  our  Eeformation  belongs  to  another  argu- 
ment, which  we  shall  meet  hereafter1. 

Plea.  The  Papal  plea  here  is  : — the  Pope's  authority 

was  established  here  by  long  possession,  and  therefore 
if  nothing  else  could  be  pleaded  for  it,  Prescription 
was  a  good  title :  and  therefore  it  was  injurious  and 
schismatical,  first  to  dispossess  him,  and  then  to  go 
about  to  reform  without  him. 

Our  answer  is  home  and  plain,  in  these  three 
Propositions. 

Answer.  (1)      The  Church  of  England  was  never  actually  un- 

der the  Pope's  jurisdiction,  so  absolutely  as  is  pretended. 

(2)  The  possession,  which  it  had  obtained  here,  was 
not  sufficient  to  create  the  Pope  a  good  title. 

(3)  Or  if  it  were,  yet  that  title  ceased  when  he  lost 
his  possession. 

1  [See  above,  p.  24,  note  1.] 


CHAPTER  VI. 


PROP.  I. 

The  Papacy  had  no  power  here,  for  the  first  six  hundred 
years. — St  Augustine — Dionoth. 

THE  first  Proposition  is  this,  That  the  Church  of 
England  was  not  actually  under  the  Papal  jurisdic- 
tion so  absolutely  as  is  pretended ;   that  is,  neither 
primarily  nor  plenarily. 

First,  not  primarily,  in  that  we  were  free  from  the  I-  Not 

primarily. 

Papal  power  for  the  first  six  hundred  years. 

This  is  confirmed  beyond  all  exception,  by  the 
entertainment  Augustine  found  among  the  sturdy 
Britains,  when  he  came  to  obtrude  that  jurisdiction 
upon  them.  Whence  it  is  evident,  that  at  that  time, 
which  was  near  six  hundred  years  after  Christ,  the 
Pope  had  neither  actual  possession  of  government  in  Fact,  or 
over,  nor  of  the  belief  of  the  Britains,  that  he  ought 
to  have  it. 

The  good  Abbot  of  Bangor,  when  pressed  to  sub- 
mit to  the  Roman  Bishop,  answered1  in  the  name  of 
the  Britains :  '  That  he  knew  no  obedience  due  to 
him,  whom  they  called  the  Pope,  but  the  obedience 
of  love ; '  and  adds  those  full  peremptory  exclusive 
words,  that  '  under  God,  they  were  to  be  governed  by 
the  Bishop  of  Caerleon.'  Which  the  Lord  Primate 
Bramhall  saith 2,  is  'a  full  demonstrative  convincing 

1  Vid.  Spelman,  Concil.  A.  D.  601,  [Tom.  i.  pp.  108,  109]. 

2  Just  Vindication,  p.  84  [Vol.  i.  pp.  162,  163 ;  new  edit.] 


46  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

proof,'  for  the  whole  time,  viz.  the  first  six  hundred 
years. 

But  it  is  added,  "  That  which  follows  strikes  the 
question  dead, — Augustine,  St  Gregory's  legate,  pro- 
posing three  things  to  the  Britains  : 

First,  That  they  should  submit  to  the  Roman 
Bishop.  Secondly,  that  they  should  conform  to  the 
customs  of  the  Roman  province.  And  lastly,  that  they 
should  join  with  him  in  preaching  to  the  Saxons'" — 

Hereupon,  the  British  clergy  assembled  themselves 
together,  Bishops  and  Priests,  in  two  several  synods 
one  after  another ;  and  upon  mature  deliberation, 
they  rejected  all  his  propositions  synodically,  and  re- 
fused flatly  and  unanimously  to  have  any  thing  to  do 
with  him  on  those  terms  :  insomuch  as  Augustine 
was  necessitated  to  return  over  sea  to  obtain  his  own 
consecration ;  and  after  his  return  hither,  to  conse- 
crate the  Saxon  Bishops  alone,  without  the  assistance 
of  any  other  Bishop.  They  refused  indeed  to  their 
own  cost :  twelve  hundred  innocent  monks  of  Bangor 
shortly  after  lost  their  lives  for  it.  The  foundation 
of  the  Papacy  here  was  thus  laid  in  blood*. 

It  is  objected,  that  the  story  of  the  Abbot  of  Ban- 
gor is  taken  by  Sir  H.  Spelman  out  of  an  old  Welsh 
author  of  suspected  credit ;  but  all  objections  to  that 

1  [Bramhall,  ubi  supra;  cf.  Bed.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  n.  c.  2.] 

2  [Vid.  Bed.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  H.  c.  2 ;   where  he  relates  the  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  the  massacre.     A  clause  is  added  to  the 
effect  that  Augustine  was  not  then  living :  but  from  its  omission  in 
the  Anglo-Saxon  version  some  have  supposed  it  an  interpolation. 
Turner  (Hist,  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  Vol.  i.  p.  330)  places  the  mas- 
sacre in  A.D.  607  or  612,  and  the  death  of  Augustine  in  605.     Cf. 
Soames's  Anglo-Saxon  Church,  pp.  58,  59.] 


QPAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  47 

purpose  are  removed  by  my  Lord  Primate,  and  Dr 
Hammond1.  Besides,  we  have  other  authority  suffi- 
cient for  it,  and  beyond  contradiction. 

The  story  in  Bede2  himself,  as  vouched  by  H.  T. 
himself  against  Dr  Hammond,  puts  it  beyond  all 
doubt,  that  the  Abbot  and  Monks  opposed  Austin, 
and  would  not  subject  themselves  to  the  Pope  of 
Rome,  but  referred  themselves  only  to  their  own 
governors, — which  is  also  the  general  result  of  other 
authors'  account  of  this  matter ;  and  if  the  matter  of 
fact  be  established,  it  is  enough  to  disprove  the 
Pope's  possession  at  that  time :  whether  they  did 
well  or  ill  is  not  now  considered. 

BalaBus,  speaking  of  that  convention3,  saith,  '  Dio- 
noth  disputed  against  the  authority  of  Rome ;  and 
defended  stoutly  (fortiter)  the  jurisdiction  of  St 
David's  in  the  affairs  of  his  own  Churches.' 

The  same  is  observed  by  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth, 
and  Sigebert  and  others4,  for  which  Dr  Hammond 
refers  us  to  the  Collection  of  the  Anglican  Councils5, 
and  Mr  Wheloc's  Notes  on  the  Saxon  Bede6. 

And  indeed  the  author  of  the  Appendix7  written 
on  purpose  to  weaken  this  great  instance,  confesseth 

1  [Bramhall's  'Reply  to  S.  W.'s  Refutation/  Works,  Vol.  n. 
pp.  302,  et  seqq.      'Schism  Guarded,'  Vol.  n.  pp.  504,  et  seqq. 
Hammond's  'Account  of  H.  T.  [i.e.  Henry  Turbervill]  his  Appendix 
to  his  Manual  of  Controversies,  concerning  the  Abbot  of  Bangor's 
Answer  to  Augustine ;'  Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  65 — 60.] 

2  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  n.  c.  2. 

3  In  Dinoth.  [Cent.  i.  §  70]. 

4  [See  Hammond's  'Account  of  H.  T.'s  Appendix,'  &c. :  Works, 
Vol.  n.  p.  58.] 

s  [Cf.  Spelman,  Tom.  i.  p.  92.] 

6  p.  115.  7  [In  Hammond's  Account,  ubi  supra.] 


48  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

as  much,  when  he  concludes  Austin  in  the  right  from 
the  miracles  and  Divine  vengeance  upon  the  refusers, 
continuing  still  refractory  to  his  proposals. 

Of  the  right  of  the  cause  we  now  dispute  not ; 
and  he  acknowledgeth,  that  Augustine  had  not  pos- 
session,— the  thing  we  contend  for.  However  this 
instance  being  of  great  moment  in  the  whole  contro- 
versy, let  us  briefly  examine  what  H.  T.  hath  said 
against  it. 

H.  T.  questions  the  authority  of  the  Welsh  MS.1 
But  the  account  there  is  so  perfectly  agreeable  to 
the  general  account  given  by  others  (most  competent 
witnesses),  and  even  Bede  himself,  that  as  we  have  no 
necessity  to  insist  much  upon  it,  so  they  have  no 
reason  at  all  to  question  it.  Besides,  if  the  reader 
would  more  fully  satisfy  himself,  he  may  see  all  the 
exceptions  against  this  MS.  at  large  answered  by 
Dr  Hammond  and  the  Archbishop  Bramhall2. 

Objection          But  Bede  concludes,  that  the  Britains  ought  to 
2. 

have  yielded  in  the  points  specified,  from  the  miracle 

wrought  by  Augustine  upon  the  blind  man ;  and  from 
that  Divine  vengeance  prophetically  foretold  by  Au- 
gustine. 

Answers.  (1)     We  now  know  what  tricks  are  used  to  coun- 

terfeit miracles  in  the  sight  of  simple  people. 

(2)  We  know  not  but  that  miracle  might  be 
said,  but  never  done,  as  many  in  the  Legends  are  : 
and  Bede  might  report,  from  very  slight  tradition,  a 
thing  tending  to  the  confirming  his  own  cause. 

1  [Hammond's  Account,  ubi  supra ;  where  may  be  also  seen  the 
objections  which  follow.] 

2  [See  references,  p.  47,  note  1.] 


£HAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  4.9 

(3)  By  Bede's  own  confession,  the  miracle  did 
prevail  with  the  Britains  to  acknowledge,  that  the 
way  of  righteousness  Augustine  preached  was  the 
true ;  yet  they  added,  that  they  could  not  renounce 
their  ancient  customs  without  the  consent  and  licence 
of  their  own  superiors  :  i.e.  they  thought  the  miracle 
confirmed  his  doctrine,  but  not  the  Pope's  authority 
over  them :  and  therefore,  lastly,  at  their  second 
meeting,  they  deemed  his  pride  a  stronger  argument 
against  him  than  his  miracle  for  him. 

And  for  that  latter  argument  from  the  slaughter,  Answer, 
first  threatened  and  then  fulfilled, — 

Sure  it  was  no  strange  thing,  that  a  proud  man 
(as  Augustine  appeared  to  be)  should  threaten  re- 
venge ;  and  a  bloody  minded  man,  to  endeavour  to 
execute  it,  as  is  evident  he  did. 

Neither  is  it  like  a  great  miracle,  that  a  vast  army 
should  first  overcome  unarmed  monks ;  and  then  pro- 
ceed victoriously  against  other  opposers. 

Yet  the  latter  part  of  the  story  quite  spoils  the 
miracle,  or  the  argument  from  it :  for  when  Ethelfred, 
in  the  heat  of  his  rage  and  victory,  proceeded  to 
destroy  the  remainder  of  those  monks,  the  avenger 
of  blood  met  him1 :  the  British  forces  routed  his 
army,  and  killed  ten  thousand  and  sixty  of  them. 

But  the  conclusion  for  my  present  turn  stands 
firm  however  ;  that,  notwithstanding  these  preten- 
sions of  miracles,  the  British  rejected  the  papacy, 
and  adhered  to  their  proper  governors, — i.  e.  the 
Pope  then  had  not  the  possession  of  them. 

1  [He  was  defeated  by  Redwald,  king  of  East  Anglia,  A.D.  617. 
Turner's  Hist,  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  Vol.  i.  p.  349.] 
4 


50  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

I  shall  conclude  here  with  that  smart  reply  of 
Archbishop  Bramhall  to  S.  W.  "  To  demonstrate 
evidently  to  him  how  vain  all  his  trifling  is  against 
the  testimony  of  Dionothus,  why  doth  he  not  answer 
the  corroboratory  proof,  which  I  brought  out  of 
Venerable  Bede  and  others,  of  two  British  Synods, 
held  at  the  same  time, — wherein  all  the  British  clergy 
did  renounce  all  obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  of 
which  all  our  historiographers  do  bear  witness  ?  Why 
doth  he  not  answer  this,  but  pass  it  by  in  so  great 
silence  ?  He  might  as  well  accuse  this  of  forgery  as 
the  other ;  since  it  is  so  well  attested,  that  Dionothus 
was  a  great  actor  and  disputer  in  that  business1." 


SECTION  I. 

THAT  NO   ONE   PART    OF   PAPAL    JURISDICTION   WAS 

EXERCISED  HERE,  FOR  THE  FIRST  SIX  HUNDRED 

YEARS— NOT  ORDINATION— ST  TELAUS,  &c. 

—TILL   1100  YEARS  AFTER   CHRIST— 

NOR  ANY   OTHER. 

IF  we  consider  the  Pope's  jurisdiction  in  its  par- 
ticular acts,  we  find  not  so  much  as  any  one  exer- 
cised or  acknowledged  here,  during  the  space  of  the 
first  six  hundred  years;  but,  as  far  as  history  gives 
us  any  account  thereof,  all  acts  of  jurisdiction  were 
performed  by  our  own  governors. 

First,  had  the  Pope  had  any  jurisdiction  here  at  all, 

it  would  doubtless  have  appeared  in  the  Ordination  or 

Consecration  of  our  Bishops.     '  Ordinationis  Jus  ccetera 

Jura  sequuntur'  is  a  known   rule   in   law :    but   it  is 

1  [Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  304,  305.] 


.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  51 

evident   that    our    own   Primates   were    independent  Not  Ordi- 
nation, 
themselves,  and  ordained  new  Bishops,  and  created 

new  Bishoprics,  without  licence  first  obtained  from, 
or  giving  any  account  thereof  to  the  Pope.  Saint 
Telaus  consecrated  and  ordained  Bishops,  as  he 
thought  fit :  'he  made  one  Hismael  Bishop  of  Saint 
David's';  and  "  in  like  manner  advanced  many  others 
of  the  same  order  to  the  same  degree,  sending  them 
throughout  the  country,  and  dividing  the  parishes 
for  the  best  accommodation  of  the  clergy  and  of 
the  people1." 

But  were  not  our  Primates  themselves  nominated  Question 
or  elected  by  the  Pope,  and  consecrated  by  him,  or 
had  licence  from  him  ? 

The  contrary  is  manifest  enough  :  all  our  British  Answer. 
Archbishops  and  Primates  were  nominated  and 
elected  by  our  Princes  with  Synods,  and  ordained 
by  their  own  suffragans  at  home ;  as  Dubritius,  Saint 
David,  Sampson,  &c.  not  only  in  the  reigns  of  Aure- 
lius  Ambrosius,  and  king  Arthur,  but  even  until  the 
time  of  Henry  the  First,  after  the  eleven  hundredth 
year  of  Christ, — as  Giraldus  Cambrensis  saith  :  "And 
always  until  the  first  conquest  of  Wales  they  were 
consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Saint  David's  ;  and 
he  was  likewise  consecrated  by  other  Bishops,  as  his 
suffragans,  without  professing  any  manner  of  subjec- 
tion to  any  other  Church2." 

Now  is  it  not  fair  to  expect  from  our  adversaries 

1  Vid.  Regest.  [Landav.]  apud  Ussher,  de  Britan.  Eccl.  Antiq. 
[c.  xir.  p.  291,  ed.  Lond.  1687.] 

2  Itinerarium,  Camb.   Lib.   11.    c.  1 ;  [p.   856,  1.    10,  etc.  apud 
Camden.  Anglica  Scripta.   Cf.  Bramhall's  Replication  to  the  Bp 
of  Chalcedon  :  Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  151,  152.] 

4 2 


52  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

one  instance,  either  of  a  Bishop  or  Archbishop  or- 
dained or  consecrated,  during  the  first  six  hundred 
years  by  papal  authority  in  Britain,  from  their  own 
or  our  British  records  ?  But  this  challenge,  made  by 
Archbishop  Bramhall',  receives  no  answer. 

Here  the  Bishop  of  Chalcedon  only  offers,  "  That 
few  or  no  records  of  British  matters  for  the  first  six 
hundred  years  do  remain2.'* 

"  This  is  no  answer,"  (saith  the  Primate3)  "while 
all  the  Roman  registers  are  extant  :  yea,  so  extant, 
that  Platina,  the  Pope's  library-keeper,  is  able  out  of 
them,  to  set  down  every  ordination  made  by  the  pri- 
mitive Bishops  of  Rome,  and  the  persons  ordained." 

He  adds,  "  Let  them  shew  what  British  Bishops 
they  have  ordained,  or  what  British  appeals  they 
have  received  for  the  first  six  hundred  years:  (though 
he  please  to  omit  it)  I  have  shewed  plainly  out  of  the 
list  of  the  Bishops  ordained — three  by  Saint  Peter, 
eleven  by  Linus,  fifteen  -by  Clement,  six  by  Ana- 
cletus,  five  by  Evaristus,  five  by  Alexander,  and  four 
by  Sixtus,  &c. — that  there  were  few  enough  for  the 
Roman  province,  none  to  spare  for  Britain1." 

(1)  It  is  said5  that  'Saint  Peter  ordained  here' ; 
but  that  was  before  he  had  been  at  Rome  :  therefore 
not  as  Pope  of  Rome. 

1  [Just  Vindication  :  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  158.] 

2  R.  C.   [i.  e.  Richard   Chalcedon's  'Brief   Survey/  p.  70,  ed. 
Paris.  1654.] 

3  [Bramhall's  Replication,  p.  166.] 

4  Vid.  Bramhall,  Tom.  i.  Disc.  in.  p.  207;  [Vol.  n.  pp.  166, 167, 
new  edit.] 

5  [This  and  the   following  objections  are  taken  from  R.  C.'s 
'Survey,'  pp.  71,  et  seqq.    The  answers  are  mainly  from  Bramhall's 
'Replication,'  ubi  supra. j 


•CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  53 

(2)  '  Eleutherius  sent  Fugatius  and  Damianus' ;  Eieuthe- 
but  what   to  do  ?     To  baptize  King  Lucius  :    upon 

the  same  errand  he  sent  Victor  into  Scotland1. 

(3)  '  Palladius  and  Ninian  are  instances  of  men  Palladius. 
sent  to  preach  to  the  Picts  and   Scotland,  as  Saint 
Patrick  into  Ireland'  :  this  was  kindly  done,  but  we 

have  not  one  syllable  of  any  jurisdiction  all  this 
while :  besides,  it  is  remarkable,  though  there  be  a 
dispute  about  Palladius  his  being  sent,  yet  it  is 
certain  he  was  rejected,  and  after  died ;  in  whose 
place  Saint  Patrick  succeeded,  without  any  mandate 
from  Rome,  that  we  read  of2. 

(4)  '  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth  saith,  that  Dubritius,  Objection. 
Primate  of  Britain,  was  Legate  of  the  see  Apostolic.'  Legates. 
And  we  say  that  Geoffrey  tells  many  fables  :  and  that 

it  is  gross  credulity  to  believe  him  contrary  to  the 
authentic  history,  and  more  undoubted  practices  of 
those  times.  '  We  read,'  (saith  the  Primate)  '  of  many 
Legates ;  but  certainly  either  they  were  no  papal 
Legates,  or  papal  Legates  in  those  days  were  but 
ordinary  messengers,  and  pretended  not  to  any  lega- 

1  [The  argument  is,  that  baptizing  was  no  act  of  jurisdiction. 
In  the  latter  clause,  however,  there  is  some  mistake;  for  Victor, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  is  not  said  to  have  come  in  person  to  Ireland  (the 
ancient  Scotland),  but  only  to  have  sent  missionaries  to  King  Donald, 
as  Eleutherius  had  sent  to  Lucius.     The  whole  story  is  considered 
fabulous  by  Bp  Stillingfleet,  Origines  Britan.  chap.  ii.  p.  53;  ed. 
Lond.  1840.] 

2  Bed.  in  vit.  S.  Pat.  Lib.  i.     [This  life  of  St  Patrick  is  among 
the  works  of  Bede,  but  was  composed  by  Probus,  according  to  Cave, 
Hist.  Liter,  in  Bed — It  contains  no  mention  of  Ccelestinus,  although 
Patrick's  mission  is  ascribed  to  that  Pope  by  Sigebert  of  Gemblours 
and  Matthew  of  Westminster.     Vid.  Spelman.  Concil.  Tom.  i.  pp. 
49,  50.     A  fuller  account  may  be  seen  in  Ussher,  de  Britan.  Eccl. 
Antiq.  c.  xvii.  pp.  425,  et  seqq.] 


54  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

tine  power,  as  it  is  now  understood :  for  we  read  [not] 
so  much  as  any  one  act  of  jurisdiction  done  by  them, 
and  firmly  conclude  thence  that  there  was  none1.' 

Objection.  But  R.  C.  saith,  '  St  Sampson  had  a  Pall  from 
Rome.' 

Solution.  He  had  a  Pall,  but  it  is  not  proved  that  he  had  it 

from  Rome  ;  it  is  certain,  Archbishops  and  Patriarchs 
in  the  primitive  times  had  Palls,  which  they  received 
not  from  Rome2. 

Besides,  if  he  did  receive  that  Pall  from  Rome, 
in  all  probability  it  was  after  the  first  six  hundred 
years : — if  either,  according  to  Cambrensis3,  he  was 
the  five  and  twentieth  Archbishop  after  St  David,  or, 
according  to  Hoveden4,  the  four  and  twentieth ;  and 
then  it  is  nothing  to  our  present  question. 

Objection.          '  St   Gregory  granted  to  Austin  the  use  of  the 

Pali.  Pall,'  saith  R.  C.  '  the  proper  badge  and  sign  of 
Archiepiscopal  dignity,  and  gave  him  liberty  to  or- 
dain twelve  Bishops  under  his  jurisdiction,  as  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury.' 

Solution.  This  was  done  at  the  end  of  the  first  six  hundred 

years,  and  therefore  not  to  our  present  question  : 
however,  if  the  Pagan  Saxons  had  destroyed  Chris- 
tianity among  the  Britains  (as  they  say),  it  was  very 
christianly  done  of  St  Gregory,  to  send  Augustine  to 
convert  and  re-establish  the  Church  among  them ; 
but  none  can  imagine,  that  by  receiving  Augustine 

1  [Replication,  p.  173.] 

2  [On  the  history  and  use  of  the  'Pall/  see  TVysden's  Hist, 
Vindication,  pp.  58,  et  seqq.] 

3  Itiner.  Camb.  Lib.  u.  c.  1. 

4  R.  de  Hoveden,  Annal.  A.  D.  1199,  [p.   798,  1.  9,  etc.   inter 
'  Rerum  Anglic.  Scriptores' :  Francofurt.   1601.] 


.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  55 

and  his  Bishops,  they  intended  to  submit  themselves 
and  posterity  to  the  see  of  Rome  ;  which  when 
pressed  before,  the  Britains  so  unanimously  rejected. 

Neither  indeed  could  they  do  it  to  the  prejudice 
of  the  ancient  primacy  of  the  Britains,  existing  long 
before,  and  confirmed  in  its  independency  upon  any 
foreign  power.  For  Bede  himself1,  as  well  as  all  our 
own  historians,  makes  it  most  evident,  that  the  Bri- 
tains had  Bishops  long  before  :  we  find  the  subscrip- 
tions of  three  of  them  to  the  first  Council  of  Aries2 
—  Eborius  of  York,  Restitutus  of  London,  and 

Adelfius  de  Civitate  Colonia  Lond and  from  the 

presence  of  some  of  them  at  the  Sardican  Synod3, 
and  the  Council  of  Ariminum4,  as  appears  by  Atha- 
nasius  and  others5 ;  and  that  they  had  also  an  Arch- 
bishop6 or  Primate,  whose  ancient  seat  had  been  at 
Caerleon,  who  rejected  the  papacy,  then  possessing 
and  defending  the  privilege  of  their  freedom  from 
any  foreign  jurisdiction7. 

This  their  privilege  was  secured  to  them,  both  by 
the  Nicene,  Chalcedonian,  and  Ephesian  Councils8. 

1  [Bede  (Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  n.  c.  2)  informs  us  that  seven  Bishops 
met  Augustine  to  confer  on  the  question  of  communion  and  co- 
operation.] 

2  [A.  D.   314.    Concil.   ed.  Labb.  Tom.  i.  1430.   Cf.  Bingham, 
Antiq.  Book  ix.  chap.  vi.  s.  20.] 

3  [A.  D.  347.]  4  [A.  D.  359.] 

6  £Apol.  ad  Constant.  Opp.  Tom.  n.  p.  720,  ed.  Colon.  1686; 
Sulpic.  Sever.  Hist.  Sacr.  Lib.  n.  ad  fin.] 

6  [viz.  Menevensis  Archiepiscopus  (Archb.  of  St  David's).     The 
archiepiscopal  see  had  been  translated  first  to  Llandaff  (A.  D.  612), 
and  soon  after  to  St  David's.     Cf.  Spelman,  Concil.  Tom.  i.  pp. 
106,  107,  and  Bingham,  ubi  supra.] 

7  [See  above,  p.  32.] 

8  [For  the  decisions  of  the  Councils  of  Nice  and  Ephesus,  sec 


56  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

Contrary  to  these  Councils,  if  the  Pope  did  intend 
to  give  Augustine  the  primacy  over  the  Britains,  it 
was  a  plain  usurpation.  Certainly  the  privileges  of 
the  Britannic  Church  returned  with  its  Christianity ; 
neither  could  Gregory  dispose  of  them  to  Austin,  or 
he  to  Gregory. 

Besides,  lastly,  it  is  not  possible  any  sober  man 
can  imagine,  that  that  humble  and  holy  Pope,  St 
Gregory,  who  so  much  detested  (if  in  earnest)  the 

If  in  earn-  very  title1  of  Universal  Bishop,  should  actually  in- 
vade the  privilege  of  the  Britains,  and  hazard  his 
own  salvation  in  his  own  judgment,  when  he  so 
charitably  designed  the  conversion  of  England  by 
sending  Austin  hither. 

Objection.          R.  C.  saitli.  '  It  appears  that  Britain  was  anciently 

Wilfrid,  subject  to  the  see  of  Rome  :  for  Wilfrid,  Archbishop 
of  York,  appealed  to  Rome  twice,  and  was  twice 
restored  to  his  Bishopric.' 

Solution.  We  see  when  this  was  done ;  seventy  and  three 

years  after  the  first  six  hundred. 

He  appealed  indeed2,  but  was  still  rejected  ;  not- 
withstanding the  sentence  of  Rome  in  his  favour,  for 
six  years  together,  during  the  reigns  of  King  Egbert 
and  Alfred  his  son ; — so  far  is  this  instance  from 
being  a  proof  of  the  Pope's  possession  here  at  that 
time.  Yet  this  is  "  the  most  famous,"  saith  my  Lord 
Bramhall  "(I  had  almost  said,  the  only)  appellant 

above,  pp.  36,  39 ;  and  that  usurped  jurisdiction  was  not  sanctioned 
by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  is  proved  in  Mr  Palmer's  'Jurisdiction 
of  British  Churches,'  sect,  v.] 

1  [See  above,  p.  39,  note  2.] 

2  [For  a  history  of  his  appeals,  see  Twysden's  Hist.  Vindication, 
pp.  36—40.] 


(*~AP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  57 

from  England  to  Rome,  that  we  read  of  before  the 
Conquest1." 

Moreover,  the  answer  of  King  Alfred  to  the  Alfred. 
Pope's  Nuncio,  sent  hither  by  the  Pope  on  purpose, 
is  very  remarkable.  He  told  him,  "  he  honoured 
them  as  his  parents  for  their  grave  lives  and  honour- 
able aspects,  but  he  could  not  give  any  assent  to 
their  legation  ;  because  it  was  against  reason,  that  a 
person,  twice  condemned  by  the  whole  Council  of  the 
English,  should  be  restored  upon  the  Pope's  letter2." 

At  this  time  it  is  apparent,  neither  the  Kings  of 
England,  nor  the  Councils  of  English  Churchmen — 
as  my  Lord  Bramhall  expresseth3  it,  "two  Kings 
successively,  and  the  great  Councils  of  the  kingdom, 
and  the  other  Archbishop,  Theodore,  with  all  the 
prime  Ecclesiastics,  and  the  flower  of  the  English 
Clergy,  opposing  so  many  sentences  and  messages 
from  Rome" — did  believe  that  England  was  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  Rome,  or  ought  to  be  so. 

Yea,   the   King  and  the    Church,   after  Alfred's  After  A i. 

fred. 

death,  still  made  good  this  conclusion,  that  it  was 
'  against  reason,  that  a  person  twice  condemned  by 
the  whole  Council  of  the  English,  should  be  restored 
upon  the  Pope's  bull4.' 

Malmesbury  would  suggest,  that  the  King  and 
the  Archbishop  Theodore  were  smitten  with  remorse 

1  [Just  Vindication;  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  133.] 

2  Spelman,  Concil.  A.  D.  705,  [Tom.  i.  p.  203.] 

3  [Ubi  supra,  p.  134.] 

4  [The  result  was  that  an  English  Synod  promoted  John  of 
Beverley  from  Hexham  to  Ydrk,  and  placed  Wilfrid  in  Hexham 
and  Ripon.     See  Twysden,  p.  39.] 


58  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

before  their  deaths,  for  the  injury  done  to  Wilfrid1, 
&c.  But  not  the  King  only,  but  the  whole  Council, 
not  Theodore  alone,  but  the  whole  Clergy,  opposed 
the  Pope's  letter ;  which  is  enough  both  to  render 
the  dream  of  Malmesbury  a  ridiculous  fable,  and  for 
ever  to  confirm  this  truth,  that  England  was  not  then, 
viz.  in  the  six  hundred  seventy  and  third  year  of 
Christ,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope,  either 
actually,  or  in  the  belief  of  the  Church  or  kingdom 
of  England. 

The  latter,  viz.  the  non-possession  of  our  belief 
of  the  Pope's  universal  jurisdiction — which  is  so 
much  insisted  upon  by  the  Romanists — will  yet  more 
evidently  appear  by  that  which  followeth. 


SECTION    II. 

NO  POSSESSION  OF   OUR  BELIEF   ANCIENT. 
Not  in       TT7E  have  found  the  Britains,  by  the  good  Abbot, 

England. 


and  two  several  Synods, — we  have  found  the 
State  of  England  in  three  successive  Kings,  their 
great  Councils  and  body  of  the  Clergy,  refused  to 
yield  obedience  both  to  the  Pope's  persuasions,  in- 
junctions, sentences,  and  Legates  :  therefore  it  seems 

1  [Cf.  Bramhall's  '  Just  Vindication,' p.  134;  where  the  Oxford 
editor  remarks  that  Malmesburr's  account  agrees  with  the  Life  of 
Wilfrid,  capp.  42,  68,  in  Gale's  '  Scriptores  xv.'  It  is  certain,  how- 
ever, that  the  warmest  opponents  of  Wilfrid  were  at  the  time 
regarded  as  the  greatest  ornaments  of  the  English  Church.  Cf. 
Twysden,  pp.  39,  40;  Turner's  Hist,  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  Vol.  i. 
pp.  385,  et  seqq.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  59 

impossible  that  Britain  or  England  should  then  be- 
lieve either  the  Pope's  Infallibility,  or  their  obligation 
to  his  jurisdiction ;  or  that  there  was  any  such  thing 
as  the  tradition  of  either,  delivered  to  them  by  their 
ancestors,  or  believed  among  them. 

Indeed,  by  this  one  argument,  those  four  great 
characters  of  the  papacy  are  deleted  and  blotted  out 
for  ever,  viz.  Possession,  Tradition,  Infallibility,  and 
Antiquity. 

I  shall  add  the  practice  and  belief  of  Scotland  Nor  in 

Scotland. 

too,  that  other  great  part  of  our  King's  dominions. 
When  the  Pope's  Legate,  more  than  twice  six  hun- 
dred years  after  Christ,  viz.  about  1238,  entered 
Scotland,  to  visit  the  churches  there,  Alexander  the 
Second,  then  King  of  the  Scots,  forbad  him  so  to  do, 
alleging,  '  That  none  of  his  predecessors  had  ever 
admitted  any  such,  neither  would  he  suffer  it ; '  and 
therefore  willed  him  at  his  own  peril  to  forbear1. 
Hence  it  is  evident,  there  was  neither  tradition  nor 
belief  either  of  the  Pope's  ancient  and  necessary 
government,  and  therefore  not  of  his  infallibility ; 
much  less  that  anciently  and  from  the  beginning,  the 
Pope  had  exercised  his  jurisdiction  more  in  Scotland 
than  in  England.  We  have  that  King's  word  for  it, 
'  None  of  his  predecessors  had  ever  admitted  any 
such.' 

1  Mat.  Paris.  [Hist.  Major.]  A.D.  1239,  [p.  498, 1.  25;  ed.  Lond. 

1639.] 


60  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 


SECTION   III. 

IN  THE   CANONS,  APOSTOLICAL,  NICENE,  MILEVITAN, 
&c.,  THIS  BELIEF   COULD   HAVE  NO   GROUND. 

WHAT  could  possibly  sway  the  first  ages  to  such 
a  belief  of  the  Pope's  universal  jurisdiction1? 
Certainly  nothing  from  the  Councils,  nor  the  practice 
of  the  Church  in  other  places,  nor  indeed  the  de- 
clared judgment  of  the  Pope  himself,  nor  the  words 
of  the  Laws. 

Not  Coun-         I.      Nothing  to  be  found  in  the   Canons  of  the  An- 
cient Councils  could  invite  to  such  belief. 
Apostles'          In  the  Apostles'  Canons2  we  find  the  quite  con- 

Canons. 

trary  ;  TT/OWTOS-,  the  first  or  Primate  among  the  Bishops 
of  every  nation,  shall  be  accounted  w  Ke<pa\ri,  'as 
their  Head' ;  and  that  every  one  of  those  Primates 
shall  cKeiva  /uoi/ct  TrpaTreiv,  'do  those  things  only  which 
belong  to  his  province  and  the  regions  under  it.' 

Nice.  And  in  pursuance  of  those  Canons,  the  first  Nicene 
Council  decreed  TOVS  v<p'  erepwv  cnroftXr^Qevra^^  v<p' 
erepwv  fjitj  irpoo-iecrOai  ',  '  that  they  that  are  cast  out  by 
some,  shall  not  be  received  by  other  Bishops,'  and 
'  that  this  must  be  observed  by  the  Bishops  through 

Milevi.  every  province3 ;'  and  in  further  harmony  the  Milevi- 
tan  Council  prohibits  '  all  appeal  from  their  own 
Bishops,  but  to  the  African  Councils  and  Primates  of 
their  own  provinces  ;  and  that  they  which  shall  ap- 
peal to  any  foreign,  whether  Bishop  or  Council,  shall 

1  Vid.  cap.  xx. 

2  [Apost.  Canon,  xxxiv;  quoted  above,  p.  34,  note  1.] 

3  [Nicsen.  Concil.  Can.  v;  apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  11.  32;  A.] 


Of\i:  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  6J 

not  be  received  into  Communion  by  any  in  Africk1.' 
And,  lastly,  the  practice  of  all  this  is  visible  in  the 
very  Synodical  Epistle  of  the  African  Council  to 
Pope  Coelestine,  where  they  beseech  him  for  the 
future,  '  that  he  will  receive  none  such,  because  he 
may  easily  find  it  defined  in  the  Council  of  Nice2.' 
These  Canons  are  all  in  the  Roman  Codex,  and 
cannot  be  pretended  to  be  invalid ;  neither  can  they 
possibly  oblige  any  man  to  believe  that  the  Pope  had 
universal  jurisdiction  as  is  now  pretended. 

Moreover,  as  Dr   Hammond3  notes,  to  some  of 
these  Canons  the  Pope  himself  makes  oath,  that  he  Pope 

swears  to 

will  inviolably  observe  them  ;  and  from  that  oath  of  theCanons. 
the  Pope,  our  Bishops  made  this  very  conclusion, 
that  the  Popes,  that  exercised  a  primacy  over  any 
other  Bishops  but  those  of  their  own  province  in 
Italy,  transgressed  their  own  profession  made  in  their 
creation4 :  as  further  appears5  by  the  '  Institution  of 
a  Christian  Man'  in  the  year  1538. 

(But  more  largely  of  this  in  the  last  chapters.) 
Therefore  the  Britains  could  not  believe  that  they 

1  [Concil.   Milevit.  A.  D.  416,  Can.  xxii;    apud  Labb.   Tom.  n. 
1542,  1543:  "  Quod  si  et  ab  eis  provocandum  putaverint,  non  pro- 
vocent,  nisi  ad  Africana  Concilia,  vel  ad  Primates  provinciarum 
suarum.  Ad  transmarina  autem  qui  putaverit  appellandum,  a  nullo 
intra  Africam  in  communionem  suscipiatur."] 

2  Vid.  Dr  Hammond,  at  large,  '  Dispatcher  Dispatcht,'  pp.  397, 
etc.  [Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  221.] 

3  [Ibid. :  the  reference  being  to  the  '  Corpus  Juris  Canonici,' 
Decret.  Part  I.  Distinct,  xvi.  c.  8.     For  at  least  eight  centuries, 
every  Bishop  of  Rome  took  an  oath  on  the  day  of  his  consecration, 
to  '  keep  the  sacred  Canons,  and  the  Constitutions  of  the  holy 
Bishops.'     Mr  Palmer's  Jurisdiction  of  British  Bishops,  p.  81.] 

4  [Hammond,  Treatise  of  Schism ;  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  105.] 

5  [See  '  Formularies  of  Faith/  p.  55;  ed.  Oxf.  1825.] 


62  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

then  owed  subjection  to  the  papacy,  but  they  must 
charge  the  writers  of  the  Apostolic  Canons  (whether 
by  Apostles  or  apostolical  men)  and  the  Councils,  for 
enacting  sacrilegious  decrees ;  and  the  Pope  also  for 
swearing  the  inviolable  observation  of  them. 

These  things  are  plain,  and  S.  W.  by  pretending 
in  general,  that  words  admit  of  various  interpreta- 
tions, without  applying  his  rule  to  the  case,  gives  but 
too  just  occasion  to  Dr  Hammond  to  expose  him  as 
he  doth1. 

Eadmer2  speaks  plain  and  home  too  ;  it  was  inau- 
ditum  in  Britannia,  quemlibet  hominum  super  se  vices 
apostolicas  gerere,  nisi  solum  Archiepiscopum  Cantuarice, 
— '  it  was  a  thing  unheard  of ; '  no  practice  of  it,  no 
tradition  for  it: — therefore  no  such  thing  could  be 
believed,  that  any  other  (not  the  Pope  himself)  did 
apostolically  govern  the  affairs  of  Britain,  but  only 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 


SECTION  IV. 

COUNCILS   OF   SARDICA,   CHALCEDON,   CONSTANTI- 
NOPLE. 

Sardica.  TT  may  be3  said,  the  Britains  might  hear  of  the 
-L  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  where  it  was 
decreed,  that  Bishops  grieved  might  appeal  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome. 

1  See  'Dispatcher  Dispatcht,'  pp.   181,  etc.     [Works,  Vol.  ir. 
pp.  224,  et  seqq.] 

2  [Hist.  Novorum],  p.  58, 1.  43;  [ed.  Selden  ] 

3  Vid.  cap.  xx.  sect.  ix. 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  63 

The  words  of  the  Council  are  these ' :  "In  case  solution, 
any  Bishop,  for  any  cause  condemned,  maintain  his 
innocence,  if  it  seem  good  to  you,  let  us  honour  the 
memory  of  Peter  the  Apostle,  that  it  be  written  by 
those  who  have  judged  the  cause  to  Julius  the  Bishop 
of  Rome ;  and  if  it  seem  good,  let  the  judgment  be 
renewed,  and  let  them  appoint  such  as  may  take  cog- 
nizance of  it."  Hereupon  it  is  plain 

(1)  These    Fathers    did    not    acknowledge    the 
Pope's  supremacy,  who  thus  laid  it  at  the  feet,  and 
pleasure  of  others — '  if  it  seem  good  to  you.' 

(2)  Here  is  no  peremptory  order  neither,  and  it 
might  not  seem  good  to  civil  Princes  to  suffer  such 
Appeals. 

(3)  No  absolute  appeal  it  seems  was  intended ; 
but  only  the  Bishop  of  Rome  might  review  the  case : 
and  how  much  a  review  differs  from  appeal,  and  that 
nothing  but    power  to    review  is  here  given  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  are  both  fully  manifested  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Paris2. 

(4)  The  Decree  (such  as  it  is)  is  not  grounded 
upon  any  prior  right,  from   Scripture,  tradition,   or 

1  [Concil.  Sardic.  A.D.  347,  Can.  iii;  apud  Labb.  Tom.  n.  629, 
A.:   El  8(  dpd  ns  firiaKOTrav  ev  rivi  irpdyftaTi   86£r)  KoraKpivfcrBai,  KOI 
vnoXcifjifiavei    favrov   pij   <radpbv   dXAa  Kti\6v  fxeiv    TO  irpayna,    tva  KOI 
avdis  i)  Kplcris  dvaixcadfj'   tl  Sojcel  vpatv  Trj  dydirrj,  Tltrpov  TOV  anxxrroAov 
TTJV  \j.VT]p.i)v  TtpTJa-afjifv,  KOI  ypcuprjitcu  irapa  TOVTWV  ra>v  Kptvavrw  'lovXi'w 
r<5  eVuTKOTra)  'P<afj.r)s,  wore  8ia  TWV  yfiTvu*i>Ta>v  rfj  errap\ia  (irurKorrav, 
ft    Sect,  dvaveodfjvm    TO  Sucaonyptov,    xal  firiyvtafjMvas  avrbs  irapcur\oi, 
K.  T.  X.] 

2  Petr.  de  Marca,  de  Concordia,  Lib.  vn.  c.  3,  s.  6,  7,  &c.    [Cf. 
ibid.  Lib.  v.  s.  47 ;  Lib.  vi.  c.  30,  s.  9 ;  Bramhall, '  Schism  Guarded,' 
Vol.  n.  pp.  531,  et  seqq.  Numerous  authorities  supporting  the  same 
view,  may  be  seen  in  Dr  Wordsworth's  '  Theophilus  Anglicanus,' 
pp.  138,  139.] 


64  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

possession,  or  any  former  Council ;  hath  no  other 
argument  but  the  honour  of  Saint  Peter ;  and  that 
not  in  his  authority,  but  his  memory,  who  first  sat  in 
that  see,  where  Julius  was  now  Bishop.  But  we  may 
have  leave  to  ask,  where  was  the  supremacy  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  before  ?  or  how  should  the  Britains 
dream  of  it  before?  or  why  did  not  these  Canons 
take  notice  of  the  undoubted  Canon  of  Nice  to  the 
contrary,  made  two  and  twenty  years  before,  either 
to  null  or  explain  it  ? 

But  that  these  Sardic  Canons  neither  established 
the  Pope's  supremacy,  nor  were  acknowledged  to 
bind  the  Church  afterwards,  nor  could  be  accounted 
an  Appendix  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  what  weak- 
ness and  falseness  has  been  practised  upon  this  argu- 
ment— is  so  largely,  ingenuously  and  satisfactorily 
manifested  by  Doctor  Stillingfleet,  that  I  shall  for  his 
fuller  satisfaction  refer  the  reader  to  him1. 

It  is  strongly  argued,  in  the  last  reasonings  of  my 
Lord  Bramhall2,  that  '  after  the  Eastern  Bishops  were 
departed,  this  Council  of  Sardica  was  no  General 
Council ;  because  the  presence  of  five  great  Patri- 
archs were  ever  held  necessary  to  the  being  of  a 
General  Council ;  as  Bellarmine  himself  confesseth,  de 
Concil.  Lib.  i.  c.  17. 

'  If  this  Council  had  been  general,  why  do  Saint 
Gregory,  Isidore,  and  Bede,  leave  it  out  of  the 
number  of  General  Councils?  Why  did  Saint  Aus- 
tin, Alypius  and  the  African  Fathers,  slight  it  ?  And 

1  Rational  Account,  pp.  419,  etc.     [Vol.  11.  pp.  206,  et  seqq.  ed. 
1844.    Cf.  also  Bp  Stillingfleet's  Origines  Britan.  pp.  145,  146.] 

2  [Schism  Guarded;  Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  532,  533.] 


-.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  65 

(which  is  more)  why  do  the  Eastern  Church  not 
reckon  it  among  their  seven,  nor  the  Western  Church 
among  their  eight  first  General  Councils  ?  Why  did 
the  English  Church  omit  it  in  their  number  in  the 
Synod  of  Hedtfeld1  in  the  year  680,  and  embrace 
only  unto  this  day  the  Council  of  Nice,  the  first  of 
Constantinople,  the  first  of  Ephesus,  and  the  first 
and  second  of  Chalcedon2?' 

The  first  five  General  Councils  were  therefore  in- 
corporated into  our  English  Laws ;  but  this  Council 
of  Sardica  never  was.  Therefore,  contrary  to  this 
Canon  of  Appeal,  it  is  the  fundamental  Law  of 
England,  in  that  famous  memorial  of  Clarendon,  '  All 
Appeals  in  England  must  proceed  regularly  ifrom 
the  Archdeacon  to  the  Bishop,  from  the  Bishop  to 
the  Archbishop,  and  if  the  Archbishop  failed  to  do 
justice,  the  last  complaint  must  be  to  the  King  to 
give  order  for  redress3.' 

It  is  evident,  the  great  Council  of  Chalcedon4  Chalcedon. 
contradicted  this  Canon  for  Appeals  to  Rome — 
where  Appeals  from  the  Archbishop  are  directed  to 
be  made  '  to  every  Primate,  or  the  holy  see  of 
Constantinople,'  as  well  as  Rome.  From  which  evi- 
dence, we  have  nothing  but  silly  evasions,  as  that 
Primate5  truly  observes. 

Besides,  if  our  forefathers  had  heard  of  the  Ca- 

1  Apud  Spelman,  Concil.  [Tom.  i.]  p.  169. 

2  [See  authorities  in  the  new  edition  of  Bramhall,  Vol.  u.  p. 
533.] 

3  [Mat.  Paris,  Hist.  Major.  A.n.  1245,  pp.  100,101.     Cf.  Bram- 
hall. ubi  supra  ] 

4  Act.  xv.  Can.  ix.  [apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  iv.  759,  n.] 

3  [Bramhall,]  Schism  Guarded,  p.  374;  [Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  534.] 

5 


66  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

nons  of  the    Councils  truly    general — as    no    doubt 

they  had — how  could  they  possibly  believe  the  un- 

Constanti-  limited  jurisdiction  of  Rome  ?     The  Council  of  Con- 

nople. 

stantinople  is  not  denied  to  give  equal  privileges  to 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  with  the  Patriarch 
Chaicedon.  of  Rome '.  And  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  conclude 
thus2:  "For  the"  (Nicene)  "Fathers  did  justly  give 
privileges  to  the  see  of  old  Rome,  because  it  was 
the  imperial  city  ;  and  the  hundred  and  fifty  godly 
Bishops,  moved  with  the  same  consideration,  did  give 
equal  privileges  to  the  see  of  new  Rome ;  rightly 
judging,  that  that  city,  which  was  the  seat  of  the 
empire  and  senate,  should  enjoy  equal  privileges 
with  the  ancient  imperial  city  of  Rome,  and  be  ex- 
tolled and  magnified  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  as  well 
as  it,  being  the  second  in  order  from  it."  And  in 
the  last  sentence  of  the  Judges,  upon  review  of  the 
cause — "  The  Archbishop  of  the  imperial  city  of 
Constantinople,  or  new  Rome,  must  enjoy  the  same 
privileges  of  honour,  and  have  the  same  power,  out 
of  his  own  authority  to  ordain  Metropolitans  in  the 
Asiatic,  Pontic,  and  Thracian  Dioceses." 

1  [Concil.  Constant.  I.  A.D.  381,  Can.  Hi:  Toi>  (itv  roi  Kavo-rav- 
TivovrroXews  €7ri<rKO7rov  tx.eiv  TO.  Trpecr/Sela  rfjs  TtfjLfjs  p.fra  TOV  TTJS  'PapTjs 
fTTia-Konov,  8ia  TO   flvai  avTT)v   vtav  'Pufjujv.     Labb.  Concil.    Tom.  II. 
947,  C.] 

2  [Concil.  Chalcedon.  Act.  xv.  Can.  xxviii:   Km  yap  ro>   6p6v<p 
TTJS  TrpfcrftvTepas  'Piaprjs,  8ia  TO  (3a(ri\fV(iv  TTJV  TTO\IV  fKfivrjv,  ol  TraTtpes 
flKOTcos  aTToScScoKatri  TO  irpfirftfla.    KOI  TW  avr<5  cr/coTro)  Kivovpfvot  ol  pv . 
0fo(pi\e<rraToi  ejria-Koiroi  TO  icra   irp«Tf3(la  airevti^iav  T<»  TTJS  vtas  'Pca- 
fj.r)s  aytajTarw    6pov<a,    (v\6ya>s    Kpivavres,    T^V    /SacrtXeia    Kai   (rvyK\iJT(a 
TifiT}6fi(rav  7TO\iv,    KOI  TO>V  urcov  diroXavovo'av  Trpfcrfttlwv  TTJ  7rp(o~f$vTepq 
/3aeriAi'8i  'Pmfjtjj,  KOL  tv  TOIS    fKKX^o-taaTHtoif,    cor   fKfivr/v,   fifydXvvecrdai 
irpayfiatri,  StvTtpav  /JL(T'  (Kfivrfv  vT 


.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  67 

Are  these  the  words  of  a  General  Council  ?  Could 
these  Fathers  imagine  the  Pope  at  that  time  Monarch 
of  the  whole  Church  ?  Or  could  this  be  acknow- 
ledged by  England  at  first,  and  they  yet  give  up 
their  Faith  to  the  Pope's  universal  power?  Can 
these  things  consist?  Yea,  is  there  not  something 
in  all  the  Councils  allowed  by  the  ancient  Britains, 
and  the  ancient  English  Church,  sufficient  to  induce 
a  Faith  quite  contrary  to  the  Koman  pretensions  ? 

But  as  to  this    Canon   of  Constantinople,  S.  W.  Objection, 
quits  his  hands ;  roundly  telling  us,  that  it  '  was  no 
free  act,'  but  '  voted  tumultuously,  after  most  of  the 
Fathers  were  departed.' 

S.  W.  had  been  safer;  if  he  had  been  wiser  :  for  Solution, 
that  which  he  saith  is   altogether  false,  and  besides 
such   a   cluster   of  forgeries,  as   deserves    the   whet- 
stone to  purpose  ; — as  my  Lord  Bramhall  manifests 
against  him1. 

(1)  False  :  the  act  was  made  before  the  Bishops 
had  license  to  depart ;  it  had  a  second  hearing ;  and 
was  debated  by  the  Pope's  own  Legates  on  his  be- 
half, before  '  the  most  glorious  Judges' ;  and  maturely 
sentenced  by  them  in  the  name  of  the  Council2. 
This  was  one  of  those  four  Councils,  which  Saint 
Gregory  honoured  next  to  the  four  Gospels3.  •  This 
is  one  of  those  very  Councils,  which  every  succeed- 
ing Pope  doth  swear  to  observe  to  the  least  tittle4. 

1  Schism  Guarded,  p.  354.  [Works,  Vol.  II.  p.  489.] 

2  [Vid.  Act.  xvi.  apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  iv.  795.] 

3  ["  Sicut  Sancti  Evangelii  quatuor  libros."     Greg.  Epist.  Lib. 
i.  c.  24 ;  Indict,  ix.] 

4  [See  above,  p.  61.] 

5—2 


68  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

(2)  For  his  forgeries  about  it,  he  is  sufficiently 
shamed  by  the  Primate  in  the  place  cited1 :  it  is 
pity  such  shifts  should  be  used,  and  it  is  folly  to 
use  them ;  when  the  truth  appears,  what  remains  but 
both  the  person  and  the  cause  reproached2? 


SECTION  V. 

ARABIC   CANONS  FORGED,— NO   CANONS   OF  THE 
COUNCIL   OF  NICE. 

objection.  T7"ET  it  is  a  marvellous  thing,  that  the  Romanist 
J-  should  dare  to  impose  upon  so  great  and 
learned  a  Primate  as  the  late  Archbishop  Laud,  that 
by  '  the  third  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  the 
Patriarch  is  in  the  same  manner  over  all  those  that 
are  under  his  authority,  as  he  who  holds  the  see  of 
Rome  is  head,  and  prince  of  the  Patriarchs ' — '  re- 
sembling Saint  Peter,  and  his  equal  in  authority3.' 

Answer.  When  it  is  most  evident  to  the  meanest  capacity, 

that  will  search  into  it,  that  that  is  no  Canon  of  the 
true  Council  of  Nice  ;  and  that  instead  of  the  third, 
it  is  the  thirty-ninth  of  the  supposititious  and  forged 
Canons, — as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  Arabic  editions, 
both  by  Pisanus  and  Turrianus4. 

In  these  editions  there  are  no  less  than  eighty 
Canons  pretended  to  be  Nicene,  whereas  the  Nicene 
Council  never  passed  above  twenty ;  as  is  evident 

1  [Bramhall,  Vol.  11.  pp.  489,  490.] 

2  See  more  of  the  Councils  at  the  latter  end.     ['  Postscript.'] 

3  [Labbe,  Concil.  Tom.  n.  303,  c;  but  see  Stillingfleet's  Vindi- 
cation of  Archbp.  Laud,  Vol.  ir.  p.  158 ;  ed.  1844.] 

4  [In  Labbe,  ubi  supra.] 


.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  69 

from  such  as  should  know  best — the  Greek  authors, 
who  all  reckon  but  twenty  Canons  of  that  Council : 
such  as  Theodoret1,  Nicephorus  Callistus2,  Gelasius 
Cyzicenus3,  Alphonsus  Pisanus ;  and  Binius4  himself 
confesseth  that  all  the  Greeks  say  there  were  no  more 
but  twenty  Canons  then  determined. 

Yea,  the  Latins  themselves  allowed  no  more  :  for 
although  Ruffinus5  make  twenty-two,  it  is  by  splitting 
of  two  into  four. 

And  in  that  Epitome6  of  the  Canons,  which  Pope 
Hadrian  sent  to  Charles  the  Great,  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Western  Churches,  A.  D.  773,  the  same 
number  appears.  And  in  Hincmarus's7  MS.  the  same 
is  proved,  from  the  testimonies  of  the  Tripartite  His- 
tory, Rumnus,  the  Carthaginian  Council,  the  epistles 
of  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Atticus  of  Constantinople, 
and  the  twelfth  action  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
And  if  we  may  believe  a  Pope,  Stephen  in  '  Gratian8 ' 

1  Theodoret.  Eccl.  Hist.  Lib.  i.  c.  viii;  [p.  29.  c ;  ed.  Vales.] 

2  Niceph.  Callist.  Eccl.  Hist.  Lib.  vm.  c.  19 ;  [Tom.  i.  p.  571,  c ; 
ed.  Paris.  1630.] 

3  [According  to  Care  (Hist.  Liter.)  this  writer  flourished  about 
A.  D.  476.     He  composed  a  history  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  the 
second  book  of  which  was  transferred  by  Alphonsus  Pisauus  into 
his  own  Latin  history  of  that  Council.     The  words  of  Gelasius  are 
as  follows :   (i-fBfvro  be  na\  fKK\T/(Ti.aa~riKovs  Kavovas  ("UUMTIV  tv  avrfi  TJI 
(v  NiKm'a  (rtWSo),  K.  r.  \.     Lib.  ii.  c.    xxx.     The  whole  history  is 
printed  in  Labbe,  Concil.  Tom.  n.] 

4  [Not.  in  Concil.  Nicaen.  Tom.  i.  p.  366,  col.  i.  A;  ed.  1636.] 
«  [Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  x.  c.  6.] 

6  [Apud  Justell.  Not.  in  Cod.  Eccl.  African,  p.  13.] 

7  [Apud  Justell.  ibid.] 

8  [Corpus  Juris  Canon.]  Distinct,  xvi.   c.  xiii.     [The  reference, 
however,  does  not  quite  bear  out  the  text ;  for,  after  stating  that 
there  were  extant  in  the  Roman  Church  only  twenty  canons,  Gra- 
tian makes  this  Pope  to  have  a«ldrd.  "  sed  quo  neglcctu  alia  defece- 
rint   ambijruum  est."] 


70  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAT.  VI. 

saith,  the  Koman  Church  did  allow  of  no  more  than 
twenty. 

The  truth  is  put  beyond  all  question,  lastly,  both 
by  the  proceedings  of  the  African  Fathers  in  the  case 
of  Zosimus  about  the  Nicene  Canons,  when  an  early 
and  diligent  search  made  it  evident ;  and  also  by  the 
'  Codex  Canonum  Ecclesiae  Africanse,'  where  it  is  ex- 
pressly said,  there  was  but  twenty  Canons1. 

But  this  matter  is  more  than  clear,  by  the  elabo- 
rate pains  of  Dr  Stillingfleet  [in  his]  defence  of  the 
late  Archbishop  Laud ;  to  whom  I  must  refer  my 
reader2. 

Yet  Bellarmine  and  Binius  would  prove  there 
were  more  than  twenty3. 

But  their  proofs  depend  either  upon  things,  as 
supposititious  as  the  Arabic  Canons  themselves  ;  such 
as  the  Epistles  of  Julius  and  Athanasius  '  ad  Marcum' ; 
or  else  they  only  prove,  that  some  other  things  were 
determined  by  that  Council,  viz.  concerning  re-bapti- 

zation,  and  the  keeping  of  Easter,  &c which  indeed 

might  be  acts  of  the  Council,  without  putting  them 
into  the  Canons,  as  Baronius4  himself  confesseth,  and 
leaves  the  patronage  of  them.  And  Spondanus5,  in 
his  contraction  of  Baronius,  relates  it  as  his  positive 
opinion,  that  he  rejected  all  but  twenty,  whether 
Arabic  or  other,  as  spurious. 

So   that  it   will  bear  no  further  contest,  but  we 

1  [p.  58 ;  Cf.  p.  363.] 

2  pp.  391,  392;  [Vol.  II.  pp.  158,  et  seqq.  ed.  1844.] 

3  [Ibid.  Vol.  ii.  p.  162;  from  whence  the  following  solution  is 
epitomized.] 

4  Annal.  ad  an.  325,  CLXXX. 

5  Epitom.  Baron,  ad  an.  325,  xm. 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  71 

may  safely  conclude,  the  Arabic  Canons,  and  conse- 
quently this  of  the  Pope's  authority,  is  a  mere  forgery 
of  later  times  ;  there  being  no  evidence  at  all,  that 
they  were  known  to  the  Church  in  all  the  time  of  the 
four  first  general  Councils. 


SECTION  VI. 

PRACTICE  INTERPRETED  THE  CANONS  TO  THE  SAME 

SENSE  AGAINST   THE    POPE— DISPOSING   OF 

PATRIARCHS— CYPRIAN— AUGUSTINE. 

WE  have  found  nothing  in  the  Canons  of  the 
ancient  Councils  that  might  give  occasion  to 
the  belief  of  the  Pope's  jurisdiction  in  England,  in 
the  primitive  ages  of  the  Church  ;  but  indeed  very 
much  to  the  contrary. 

But  the  Romanist 1  affirms  against  my  lord  of  Can- 
terbury, that  'the  practice  of  the  Church  is  always  the 
best  expositor  and  assertor  of  the  Canons.' 

We  are  now  to  examine,  whether  the  ancient 
practice  of  the  Church  was  sufficient  to  persuade  a 
belief  of  the  Pope's  jurisdiction  as  is  pretended  :  in 
the  mean  time  not  doubting,  but  that  it  is  a  thing 
most  evident,  that  the  Pope  hath  practised  contrary 
to  the  Canons,  and  the  Canons  have  declared,  and 
indeed  been  practised  against  the  Pope. 

But  what  Catholic  practice  is  found  on  record, 
that  can  be  supposed  a  sufficient  ground  of  this  Faith, 

1  [viz.  T.  C.,  or  Thomas  Carwell,  in  the  'Labyrinthus  Can- 
tuariensis,'  p.  184 ;  Cf.  Bp  Stillingfleet's  Reply  ('  Vindication  of 
Archbp  Laud'),  Vol.  11.  p.  163.] 


72  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

either  in  England  or  any  part  of  Christendom?  Cer- 
tainly not  of  Ordinations,  or  Appeals,  or  Visitations. 
Yea,  can  it  be  imagined,  that  our  English  ancestors 
had  not  heard  of  the  practice  of  the  Britains  in 
maintaining  their  liberty  when  it  was  assaulted  by 
Austin,  and  rejecting  his  demands  of  subjection  to 
the  see  of  Rome l  ?  No  doubt  they  had  heard  of 
the  Cyprian  privilege2,  and  how  it  was  insisted  on  in 
bar  of  the  universal  pastorship,  by  their  friends  the 
Eastern  Church; — from  whom3  they  in  likelihood  re- 
ceived the  Faith,  and  with  whom  they  were  found  at 
first  in  Communion,  about  the  observation  of  Easter 
and  Baptism ;  and  in  practice,  diverse  from  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

Objection.  But  one  great  point  of  practice  is  here  pitched 
upon  by  Baronius,  and  after  him  by  T.  C.4  It  is  the 
Pope's  confirmation  of  the  election,  deposing  and  re- 
storing, of  Patriarchs  ;  which  they  say  he  did  '  as  head 
and  prince  of  all  the  Patriarchs,'  and  consequently  of 
the  whole  Church. 

Solution.  But  where  hath  he  done  these  strange  feats? 

Certainly  not  in  England.  And  we  shall  find  the 
instances  not  many  nor  very  early  any  where  else. 
But  to  each  branch. 

Confirma-          (1)     It  is  urged,  that  the  Pope's  confirmation  is 

tion  of 

Patriarchs,  required  to  all  new  elected  Patriarchs. 

Admit  it,  but  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  Petrus  dc 
Marca5,    fully  answers    Baronius    (and  indeed  every 

1  [See  above,  pp.  45,  46.]  2  [gee  above,  p.  SO.] 

3  [Cf.  Twysden's  Vindication,  pp.  9,  13.] 

4  [Cf.  Stillingfleet,  ubi  supra.] 

5  De  Concordia  Sacerdotii  et  Itnperii,  Lib.  vi.  c.  v.  s.  2. 


tf.Ar.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  73 

body  else),  that  '  this  was  no  token  of  jurisdiction, 
but  only  of  receiving  into  Communion  ;  and  as  a  tes- 
timony of  consent  to  the  Consecration.'  If  any  force 
be  in  this  argument,  then  the  Bishop  of  Carthage  had 
power  over  the  Bishop  of  Rome ;  because  he  and 
other  African  Bishops  confirmed  the  Bishop  of  Rome's 
ordination l. 

Baronius  insists  much  upon  '  the  Confirmation  of 
Anatolius  by  Leo  I.'  which  very  instance  answers  it- 
self. Leo  himself  tells  us,  that  it  was  to  manifest, 
'  that  there  was  but  one  entire  Communion  among 
them  throughout  the  world2.' 

Yet  it  is  not  to  be  omitted,  that  the  practice  of  Consecra- 
tion de- 
the  Church  supposeth  that  the  validity  of  the  Patri-  pends  not 

on  confir- 

arch's  Consecration  depended  not  upon  the  Con-  mation. 
firmation,  or  indeed,  consent  of  the  Pope  of  Rome. 
Yea,  though  he  did  deny  his  communicatory  let- 
ters, that  did  not  hinder  them  from  the  execution 
of  their  office.  Therefore  Flavianus3,  the  Patriarch 
of  Antioch,  though  opposed  by  three  Roman  Bishops 
successively,  who  used  all  importunity  with  the 
Emperor,  that  he  might  be  displaced ;  yet  because 
the  Churches  of  the  Orient  did  approve  of  him  and 
communicate  with  him,  he  was  allowed,  and  their 
consent  stood  against  the  Bishop's  of  Rome.  At  last, 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  severely  rebuked  for  his  pride 
by  the  Emperor,  yielded ;  and  his  consent  was  given 

1  S.  Cyprian.  Epist.  LII.  ed.  Rigalt.  ["quo  (i.e.   loco  Fabiani) 
occupato  de  Dei  voluntate  atque  omnium  nostrum  consensione  fir- 
mato,"  etc.] 

2  [Ep.  xxxviii :  "  Ut  per  totum  mundum  una  nobis  sit  unius 
communionis  integritas,"  etc.] 

3  [Theodoret.  Eccl.  Hist.  Lib.  v.  c.  23 ;  Cf.  Stillingfleet's  Vindi- 
artion.  Vol.  n.  pp.  174,  175.] 


74  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAI-.  VI. 

only  by  renewing  communion  with  him.  But  where 
was  the  Pope's  power,  either  to  make,  or  make  void 
a  Patriarch,  while  this  was  in  practice  ? 

(2)  Doth  practice  better  prove  the  Pope's  power 
to  depose  unworthy  Patriarchs  ?  The  contrary  is  evi- 
dent ;  for  both  before  and  after  the  Council  of  Nice, 
according  to  that  Council,  the  practice  of  the  Church 
placed  the  power  of  deposing  Patriarchs  in  provincial 
Councils ;  and  the  Pope  had  it  not,  till  the  Coun- 
cil of  Sardica  decreed  in  the  case  of  Athanasius,  as 
P.  de  Marca l  abundantly  proves.  Also,  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  Sardica  itself,  did  not  (as  is  commonly  said)  de- 
cree appeals  to  Rome ;  but  only  gave  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  power  to  review  their  actions,  but  still  reserv- 
ing to  provincial  Councils  that  authority  which  the 
Nicene  Council  had  established  them  in2. 

But  T.  C.  urgeth,  that  '  we  read  of  no  less  than 
eight  several  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  deposed 
by  the  Bishop  of  Rome.' 

Where  doth  he  read  it?  In  an  epistle  of  Pope 
Nicolaus  to  the  Emperor  Michael.  '  Well  chosen,' 
saith  Doctor  Stillingfleet — '  a  Pope's  testimony  in  his 
own  cause ;  and  such  a  one  as  was  then  in  contro- 
versy with  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  so 
late,  too,  as  the  ninth  century  is3': — when  his  power 
was  much  grown  from  the  infancy  of  it. 

Yet,  for  all  this,  this  Pope  on  such  an  occasion, 
and  at  that  time,  did  not  say  that  the  Patriarchs 
mentioned  by  him  were  deposed  by  the  Pope's  sole 

1  Vid.  dc  Concordia,  Lib.  vn.  c.  i.  s.  6. 

2  [Ooncil.  Nicsen.  Can.  v;  and  for  the  Council  of  Sardica,  see 
above,  p.  63.] 

3  [Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  Vol.  n.  pp.  175,  176.] 


.  VL]  PRESCRIPTION.  75 

authority,  but  not  ejected  sine  consensu  Homani 
Pontificis,  -without  his  consent';  and  his  design  was 
only  to  shew,  that  Ignatius  the  Patriarch  ought  not 
to  have  been  deposed  without  his  consent1. 

'  Did  not   Sixtus  the  third  depose   Polychronius  Objection. 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem  '  ? 

No.  He  only  sent  eight  persons  from  a  Synod  Solution. 
at  Rome  to  Jerusalem  ;  who  offered  not,  by  the  Pope's 
authority  to  depose  him,  as  should  have  been  proved, 
but  by  their  means  seventy  neighbour-Bishops  were 
called,  by  whom  he  was  deposed.  Besides,  Binius 
himself  condemns  those  very  acts,  that  report  this 
story,  for  spurious2. 

(3)     But  have  we  any  better  proof  of  the  Pope's  Restoring 

Patriarchs. 

power  to  restore,  such  as  were  deposed  ? 

The  only  instance  in  this  case  brought  by  T.  C.  is 
of  Athanasius  and  Paulus  restored  by  Julius  :  and 
indeed  to  little  purpose3. 

It  is  true,  Athanasius,  condemned  by  two  Synods, 
goes  to  Rome,  where  he  and  Paulus  are  received  into 
communion  by  Julius,  not  liking  the  decree  of  the 
Eastern  bishops.  Julius  never  pleads  his  power  to 
depose  Patriarchs,  but  that  his  consent  for  the  sake 
of  unity  should  also  have  been  first  desired ;  and  that 
so  great  a  matter  in  the  Church  required  a  Council 
both  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Bishops4. 

"  But,"  saith  Dr  Stillingfleet,  "  when  we  consider 

1  Vid.  Nicol.  I.  Epist.  viii.  Michael.  Iinper. ;   apud  Concil.  cd. 
Bin.  Tom.  vi.  p.  506. 

2  Concil.  Tom.  n.  p.  685. 

3  [Cf.  Stillingfleet,  ubi  supra,  p.  176.] 

4  Vid.  P.  de  Marca,  do  Concordia,  Lib.  vu.  c.  4,  s.  6. 


76  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

with  what  heat  and  stomach  this  was  received  by  the 
Eastern  Bishops ;  how  they  absolutely  deny  that  the 
Western  Bishops  had  any  more  to  do  with  their  pro- 
ceedings, than  they  had  with  theirs ;  when  they  say, 
that  the  Pope  by  this  usurpation  was  the  cause  of  all 
the  mischief  that  followed ;  we  see  what  an  excellent 
instance  you  have  made  choice  of  to  prove  the  Pope's 
power  of  restoring  Bishops,  by  Divine  right,  and  that 
this  was  acknowledged  by  the  whole  Church1." 

Sure,  so  far  the  Church's  practice  abroad  could 
not  prevail  to  settle  his  right  of  jurisdiction  in  the 
English  faith ;  especially  considering  the  practice  of 
our  own  Church,  in  opposing  the  letters  and  Legates 
of  Popes  for  six  years  together,  for  the  restoring  of 
Archbishop  Wilfrid,  by  two  of  our  own  successive 
Kings,  and  the  whole  State  of  England  ecclesiastical 
and  civil,  as  appeared  above2. 

Moreover,  St  Cyprian3  professeth  in  the  Council 
of  Carthage,  "  For  no  one  of  us  hath  made  himself 
Bishop  of  Bishops,  or  driven  his  fellow  Bishops  to 
a  necessity  of  obedience "  :  particularly  relating  to 
Stephen,  then  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  Baronius  himself 
resolves4. 

But  upon  a  matter  of  fact,  St  Augustine  gave  his 
own  judgment,  both  of  the  Pope's  power  and  action, 

1  [Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  Vol.  n.  p.  177.] 

2  [pp.  56,  57.] 

3  [A.  D.  255;    apud  Labb.   Concil.   Tom.  i.   786:  "Neque  cnim 
quisquam  nostrum  cpiscopuin  se  esse  episcoporum  constituit,  aut 
tyrannico  terroro  ad  observandi  necessitatem  collcgas  suos  adigit." 
The  Council  was  attended  by  eighty-seven  bishops,  besides  priests 
and  deacons.] 

4  Annal.  Eccl.  ad  an.  258,  xxiv. 


O*-Ar.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  77 

in  that  known  case  of  the  Donatists1.  (1)  They  had 
leave  to  be  heard  by  foreign  Bishops.  (2)  Forte  non 
debuit,  '  yet  perhaps  Melchiades,  the  Bishop  of  the 
Roman  Church,  ought  not  to  usurp  to  himself  this 
judgment,  which  had  been  determined  by  seventy 
African  Bishops,  Tigisitanus  sitting  Primate.'  (3)  St 
Augustine  proceeds,  '  And  what  will  you  say,  if  he  did 
not  usurp  this  power  ?  For  the  Emperor,  being  de- 
sired, sent  Bishops  judges,  which  should  sit  with  him, 
and  determine  what  was  just  upon  the  whole  cause.' 
So  that  upon  the  whole,  it  is  easily  observed,  that  in 
St  Augustine's  judgment,  both  the  right  and  the 
power,  by  which  the  Pope  (as  the  rest)  proceeded, 
was  to  be  resolved  to  the  Emperor,  as  a  little  before, 
ad  cujus  curam,  'to  whose  care' — it  did  chiefly  belong; 
de  qua  rationem  Deo  redditurus  est,  '  of  which  he 
was  to  give  account  to  God.'  Could  this  consist  with 
the  belief  of  the  Pope's  universal  pastorship  by  Divine 
right  ?  If  there  can  possibly,  after  so  clear  evidence, 
need  more  to  be  said  of  St  Augustine's  judgment  in 
this,  it  is  only  to  refer  you  to  the  controversies  be- 
tween the  African  Bishops  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
in  case  of  appeals2. 

1  [S.  Augustin.  Epist.  CLXH.   The  question  is  very  fully  stated  in 
Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  Vol.  n.  pp.  178,  et  seqq.] 

2  Vid.  Dr  Hammond,   '  Dispatcher  Dispatcht',    pp.   398,  etc. 
[Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  290,  291] ;    Bp  Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  [Vol. 
n.  pp.  186 — 194.     See  below,  sect,  viii.] 


78  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

SECTION  VII. 

NOT  THE  SAYINGS  OF  ANCIENT  POPES,  OR  PRACTICE 
— AGATHO— PELAGIUS— GREGORY— VICTOR. 

WE  can  find  nothing  in  the  ancient  Canons,  or 
ancient  practice,  to  ground  a  belief  of  the 
Pope's  authority  in  England  upon ;  yet  sure  Popes 
themselves  claimed  it,  and  used  expressions  to  let  us 
know  it. 

Were  it  so  indeed,  experience  tells  us  how  little 
Popes  are  to  be  believed  in  their  own  cause ;  and  all 
reason  persuades  us  not  to  believe  them,  against  the 
Councils  and  practice  of  the  Church,  and  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Fathers. 

But  some  of  the  ancient  Popes  have  been  found 
so  honest,  as  to  confess  against  themselves ;  and  ac- 
knowledge plain  truth  against  their  own  greatness. 

The  Pope's  universal  headship  is  not  to  be  be- 
lieved from  the  words  of  Pope  Agatho  *,  in  his  letter 
to  the  Emperor ;  where  St  Paul  stands  as  high  as 
St  Peter — oi  TWV  ATTOGTOXWV  Kopv(j)cuoi — both  are 
said  by  him  to  be  heads  or  chief  of  the  Apostles. 
Besides,  he  expressly  claimed  only  the  Western  Patri- 
archate. 

But  Pope  Pelagius  II.  is  more  plain  and  home  to 
Rome  itself.  Nee  etiam  Romanus  Pontifex  univer- 
salis  est  appellandus — 'the  Pope  of  Rome  is  not  to 
be  called  universal  Bishop2.'  This  was  the  opinion  of 

1  Concil.    Tom.  v.  p.  61,  B.    [ed.  Bin.     Numerous  other  testi- 
monies to  the  equality  of  the  Apostles,  both  in  honour  and  juris- 
diction, may  be  seen  in  Barrow,  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  Suppos.  i. 
Works,  Vol.  I.  pp.  587—593 ;  ed.  1716.] 

2  [Corpus  Juris  Canon.]  Decret.  Part  I.  Distinct,  xcix.  [cap.  v.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  79 

that  Pope  of  Rome  himself,  as  it  is  cited  out  of  his 
Epistle,  and  put  into  the  body  of  the  law  by  Gratian. 
Now  one  would  think,  that  the  same  law  denied  the 
power,  that  denied  the  title  properly  expressing  that 
power. 

How  triflingly l  doth  S.  W.  object,  '  these  words 
are  not  found  in  the  Council  of  Carthage,  while  they 
are  found  in  the  Corpus  Juris' — the  Law  now  of  as 
much  force  at  Rome  as  that  Council. 

It  is  weaker  to  say2,  they  are  Gratian's  own  addi- 
tion, seeing  his  addition  is  now  law  ;  and  also  proved 
to  be  the  sense  of  the  Pope  Pelagius.  In  his  Epistle, 
he  saith,  '  Let  none  of  the  Patriarchs  ever  use  the 
name  of  Universal3', — applying  in  the  conclusion  to 
himself,  being  then  Pope,  as  one  of  that  number ; 
and  so,  if  he  were  either  Pontifex  Maximus,  or  a 
Patriarch,  and  neither  himself  nor  any  Patriarch  might 
be  called  Universalis,  then  sure  nothing  was  added 
by  him,  that  said  in  his  Title  to  the  fourth  chapter  as 
Gratian  did,  Nee  etiam  Romanus  Pontifex,  '  not  even 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  must  be  called  Universal  Bishop'. 

But  what  shall  be  said  to  St  Gregory,  who  in  his  Gregory. 
Epistle  to  Eulogius4,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  tells  him, 

1  [Cf.  Hammond's  '  Dispatcher  Dispatcht',  chap.  v.    sect,    ix : 
Works,  Vol.  u.  p.  297.]  2  [Ibid.] 

3  ["  Nullus  Patriarcharum  universalitatis  vocabulo  unquam  uta- 
tur."     Corpus  Juris  Canon,  ubi  supra.] 

4  Gregor.  Epist.  Lib.  vn.  Indict,  i.  ep.  xxx ;  [ed.   Antverp. 
1615  :  "  Non  tamen  invenio  vestram  beatitudinem,  hoc  ipsum  quod 
memorise  vestrse  intuli,  perfecte  retinere  voluisse.     Nam  dixi,  nee 
mihi  vos,  nee  cuiquam  alteri  tale  aliquid  scribere  debere ;  et  ecce 
in  prsefatione  epistolse,  quam  sd  me  ipsum  qui  prohibui  direxistis, 
superbse  appellationis  verbum  universalem  me  papam  dicentes,  im- 
primere  curastis,"  etc.  etc.     Opp.  Tom.  iv.  col.  240,  F.] 


80  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

'that  he  had  prohibited  him  to  call  him  Universal 
Father  ;  that  he  was  not  to  do  it ;  that  reason  re- 
quired the  contrary  ;  that  it  is  derogatory  to  his  bre- 
thren;  that  this  honour  had,  by  a  Council,  that  of 
Chalcedon,  been  offered  to  his  predecessors,  but  re- 
fused and  never  used  by  any'. 

Again  higher  he  tells  Mauritius1,  'fidenter  dico, 
whoever  calls  himself  Universal  Priest,  or  desires  to 
be  so  called,  is  by  his  pride  a  forerunner  of  Anti- 
christ7 ;  '  his  pride  is  an  indication  of  Antichrist 
approaching',  as  he  saith  to  the  Empress.  Yea,  'an 
imitation  of  none  but  the  Devil,  endeavouring  to 
break  out  to  the  top  of  singularity',  (as  he  saith3  to 
John  himself) :  yea  elsewhere  he  calls  this  title,  '  the 
name  of  blasphemy4',  and  saith,  that  those  that  con- 
sent to  it  do  fidem  perdere,  'destroy  the  Faith5'. 

A  strong  title, — that  neither  Saint  Gregory,  nor, 
as  he  saith,  any  one  of  his  predecessors,  no  Pope  that 

1  Lib.  vi.  ep.  xxx :  ["  Ego  autem  fidenter  dico,  quia  quisquis  se 
universalem  sacerdotem  vocat,  vel  vocari  desiderat,  in  clatione  sua 
antichristum   prsecurrit,    quia   superbiendo   se  cseteris  prseponit." 
Opp.  Tom.  iv.  col.  215,  E.] 

2  Lib.  iv.  [Indict,  xm.]  ep.  xxxiv :  ["  Sed  in  hac  ejus  superbia 
quid  aliud  nisi  propinqua  jam  antichristi  esse  tempora  designatur  ?" 
Opp.  Tom.  iv.  col.  140,  A.] 

3  Lib.   iv.  [Indict,  xm.]  ep.   xxxviii;  ["  Quis  rogo  in  hoc  tarn 
perverso  vocabulo,  nisi  ille  ad  imitandum  proponitur,  qui,  despectis 
angelorum  legionibus  secum  socialiter  constitutis,  ad  culmen  cona- 
tus  est  singularitatis  erumpere,  ut  et  nulli  subesse,  et  solus  omnibus 
prseesse  videretur."      Opp.  Tom.  iv.  col.  145,  D.] 

4  Lib.  iv.    [Indict,    xm.]   ep.    xxxii :  ["  Sed  absit  a  cordibus 
Christianorum  nomen   istud  blasphemise,   in   quo   omnium  sacer- 
dotum  honor  adimitur,  dum  ab  uno  sibi  dementer  arrogatur."  Opp. 
Tom.  iv.  col.  137,  E.] 

5  Ibid.  ep.  xxxix;  ["In  isto  enim  scelesto  vocabulo  consentire, 
nihil  est  aliud  quam  fidem  perdere."     Opp.  Tom.  iv.  col.  148,  r.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  81 

went  before  him,  would  ever  accept  of:  and  herein, 
saith  he1,  "I  plead  not  my  own  cause,  but  the  cause 
of  God,  of  the  whole  Church,  of  the  Laws,  the  vene- 
rable Councils,  the  commands  of  Christ ;  which  are 
all  disturbed  with  the  invention  of  this  proud  pom- 
patic  style  of  Universal  Bishop." 

Now  can  any  one  imagine,  except  one  prejudiced 
as  S.  "VV.,  that  the  power  is  harmless,  when  the  title, 
that  doth  barely  express  it,  is  so  devilish  a  thing? 
Can  any  one  imagine,  that  Saint  Gregory  knew  him- 
self to  be  that  indeed,  which  in  word  he  so  much 
abominates?  Or  that  he  really  exercised  that  Uni- 
versal authority  and  Universal  Bishopric,  though  he 
so  prodigiously  lets  fly  against  the  style  of  'Universal 
Bishop'  ?  Yet  all  this  is  said,  and  must  be  main- 
tained, lest  we  should  exclude  the  Universal  Pastor- 
ship out  of  the  Primitive  Church*. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  pitiful  stuff  used  by  the 
Romanist  upon  this  argument,  with  which  I  shall  not 
trouble  the  reader ;  yet  nothing  shall  be  omitted  that 
hath  any  shew  of  argument  on  their  side  ;  among 


1  Ibid.  ep.  xxii ;  ["  Quia  vero  non  causa  mea,  sed  Dei  est ;  et 
quia  non  solus  ego,  sed  tota  turbatur  ecclesia,  quia  pise  leges,  quia 
venerandse  synodi,  quia  ipsa  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  mandata 
superbi  atque  pompatici  cujusdam  sermonis  inventione  turbantur," 
etc.     Opp.  Tom.  iv.  col.  137,  A.] 

2  [See  S.  W.'s  objections  and  the  reply  to  them  in  Dr  Ham- 
mond, Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  294,  etc.     Bp  Stillingfleet,  in  onsidering 
similar  objections,  gives  a  clear  account  of  the  various  meanings 
attached  to  the  title  'Universal  Bishop.'    The  modern  Church  of 
Rome  in  claiming  prerogatives  for  the  Pope  makes  all  lawful  juris- 
diction derivable  from  him.    'Vindication  of  Archbp  Laud,'  Vol.  n. 
pp.  214,  etc.] 

6 


82  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

which,   the  words  of  Saint   Gregory  following  in  his 
argument  are  most  material. 

Objection.  Saint  Gregory  saith,  '  The  care  of  the  whole  Church 
was  by  Christ  committed  to  the  chief  of  the  Apostles, 
Saint  Peter ;  and  yet  he  is  not  called  the  Universal 
Bishop1.' 

Solution.  it  is  confessed  that  Saint  Gregory  doth  say  that 

the  care  of  the  whole  is  committed  to  Saint  Peter ; 
again,  that  he  was  the  prince  of  the  Apostles 2,  and  yet 
he  was  not  called  Universal  Apostle.  It  is  hence  plain, 
that  his  being  Prince  of  the  Apostles  did  not  carry  in 
it  so  much  as  Universal  Bishop;  otherwise  Saint  Gre- 
gory would  not  have  given  the  one,  and  denied  him 
the  other  ;  and  it  is  as  plain  that  he  had  the  care  of 
all  Churches,  and  so  had  Saint  Paul3 ;  but  it  is  not 
plain  that  he  had  power  over  all  Churches. 

Doctor  Hammond4  proceeds  irresistibly  to  prove 
the  contrary  from  Saint  Gregory  himself,  according 
to  the  words  of  the  Novel :  '  If  any  complaint  be 
made,'  saith  he,  '  against  a  Bishop,  the  cause  shall  be 
judged  before  the  Metropolitan,  "  secundum  sanctas 
Regulas  et  nostras5  Leges" ;  'if  the  party  stand  not  to 

1  ["  Cura  ei  totius  ecclesiae,  et  principatus  committitur,  et  tamen 
universalis  apostolus  non  vocatur."    Lib.  iv.  Indict,  xi.  ep.  xxxii ; 
Tom.  iv.  col.  137,  B.] 

2  ["  Omnium  apostolorum  Petro  principi  apostolo  totius  ecclesise 
cura  commissa  est."    Ibid.] 

3  [2  Cor.  xi.  28.] 

4  [Dispatcher  Dispatcht,  chap.  n.  s.  iv ;  Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  208. 
The  capitular  in  question  may  be  seen  in  Gregory's  Epistles,  Lib.  xi. 
Indict,  vi.  ep.  Ivij  Tom.  iv.  col.  442,  A.] 

6  [i.  e.  'the  imperial  laws ;'  the  words  being  extracted  from  the 
Emperor's  Constitutions.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  83 

his  judgment,  the  cause  is  to  be  brought  to  the 
Archbishop  or  Patriarch  of  that  diocese,  and  he 
shall  give  it  a  conclusion,  according  to  the  Canons 
and  Laws  aforesaid' ; — no  place  left  for  appeal  to 
Rome. 

Yet    it   must    be    acknowledged,    Saint   Gregory  Objection. 
adds1,     "  Si   dictum  fuerit,  etc.,    where    there    is    no 
Metropolitan  nor  Patriarch,  the  cause  may  be  heard 
by  the  Apostolic   see." — which    Gregory  calls  "  the 
Head  of  all  Churches." 

Now  if  this  be  allowed,  what  hath  the  Pope  gained,  Solution. 
if  perhaps  such  a  Church  should  be  found  as  hath 
neither  Primate  nor  Patriarch  ?  How  is  he  the 
nearer  to  the  Universal  Authority  over  those  Churches 
that  have  Primates  of  their  own  ;  or  which  way  will 
he  by  this  means  extend  his  jurisdiction  to  us  in 
England,  who  have  ever  had  more  than  one  Metropo- 
litan ? — The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  once  ac- 
knowledged by  a  Pope  to  be  "  quasi  altering  orbis 
Papa*". 

But  admitting  this  extraordinary  case,  that  where 
there  is  neither  Metropolitan  nor  Patriarch  there, 
they  are  to  have  recourse  to  the  see  Apostolic ;  it  is 
a  greater  wonder  that  the  Romanist  should  insist 
upon  it,  than  that  his  late  Grace  should  mention  it. 

1  ["  Contra  hsec  si  dictum  fuerit,  quia  nee  Metropolitan!  habuit 
nee  Patriarcham,  dicendum  est  quia  a  sede  Apostolica,  quse  omnium 
ecclesiarum  caput  est,  causa  hsec  audienda  ac  dirimenda  fuerat," 
etc.     Ibid.  col.  442,  B.] 

2  [This  was  the  language  qf  Urban  II.  to  Anselm.     Cf.  W. 
Malmesbur.  de  Gestis  Pontif.  Lib.  i.  p.  223,  1.  33;  apud  Rerum 
Anglic.  Scriptores ;  ed.  Francofurt.  1601.     Numerous  other  titles, 
equally  exalted,  maybe  seen  in  Twysden's  Vindication,  p.  22.] 

6—2 


84  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

— at  which  T.  C.  so  much  admires1:  for  this  one  ob- 
servation, with  the  assistance  of  that  known  rule  in 
Law,  '  exceptio  firmat  regulam  in  non  exceptis,'  puts  a 
plain  and  speedy  end  to  the  whole  controversy.  For 
if  recourse  may  be  had  to  Eome  from  no  other  place, 
but  where  there  is  neither  Primate  nor  Patriarch, 
then  not  from  England2,  either  when  Saint  Gregory 
laid  down  the  rule,  or  ever  since,  and  perhaps  then 
from  no  other  place  in  the  world.  And  indeed  pro- 
vision was  thus  made  against  any  such  extraordinary 
case  that  might  possibly  happen ;  for  it  is  but  reason, 
that  where  there  is  no  Primate  to  appeal  to,  appeal 
should  be  received  somewhere  else ;  and  where  better 
than  at  Eome,  which  St  Gregory  calls  Caput  omnium 
Ecclesiarum  ? — and  this  is  the  utmost  advantage  the 
Romanist  can  hope  to  receive  from  the  words. 

But  we  see  Saint  Gregory  calls  Rome  the  '  Head 
of  all  Churches3'. 

It  is  true  whether  he  intends  a  primacy  of  fame 
or  visible  splendour  and  dignity,  being  the  seat  of  the 
Emperor,  or  order  and  unity,  is  not  certain  :  but  it 
is  certain,  he  intends  nothing  less  by  it  than  that 
which  just  now  he  denied, — a  supremacy  of  power  and 
universal  ordinary  jurisdiction ;  he  having,  in  the  words 
immediately  foregoing,  concluded  all  ordinary  juris- 
diction within  every  proper  primacy  or  patriarchate4. 

1  [Of.   Stillingfleet's  Vindication  of  Archbp  Laud,  Vol.  u.   p. 
194,  where  Carwell's  wonder  is  fully  explained.] 

2  [See  above,  pp.  31,  32.] 

3  [See  above,  p.  83,  note  1.] 

4  [Mr  Palmer  (Treatise  on  the  Church,  Part  vn.   chap,   iii.) 
enumerates  the  circumstances,  which  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Gospel 
gave  an  accidental  pre-eminence  to  the  Roman  Church.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  85 

But,  saith   S.  W.,   '  Saint  Gregory  practised  the  Objection, 
thing,  though  he  denied  the  word  of  Universal1'. 

What    hypocrisy !    damn   the    Title   as  he    doth,  Solution, 
and    yet  practise  the  thing ! — you  must  have  good 
proof. 

His  first  instance  is  of  the  Primate  of  Byzacium, 
wherein  the  Emperor  first  put  forth  his  authority,  and 
would  have  him  judged  by  Gregory  :  "  Piissimus  Im- 
perator  eum  \jujcta  statuta  canonica]  per  nos  voluit 
judicari",  saith  Gregory2.  Hence  Doctor  Hammond 
smartly  and  soundly  observes,  '  that  appeals  from  a 
Primate  lie  to  none  but  the  supreme  magistrate3'. 

To  which  purpose,  in  the  cause  of  Maximus  Bishop 
of  Salona,  decreed  excommunicate  by  Gregory,  his 
sentence  was  still  with  this  reserve  and  submission, 
nisi  prius,  etc.  "unless  I  should  first  understand  by 
my  most  serene  Lords  (the  Emperors)  that  they  com- 
manded it  to  be  done4". 

Thus,  if  this  '  perfect'  instance  (as  S.  W.  calls  it) 
have  any  force  in  it,  his  cause  is  gone,  whatever 
advantage  he  pretends  to  gain  by  it. 

Besides,  the  Emperor's  command  was,  that  Gre- 

1  [Cf.   Dr  Hammond,  Dispatcher  Dispatcht,  chap.  v.  sect.  ix. 
§  31 ;  Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  294.] 

2  [Epist.   Lib.    vii.    Indict,    n.    ep.    Ixv;   Opp.    Tom.   iv.  col. 
276,  D.] 

3  [ubi  supra,  $  33.] 

4  [The  whole  sentence  is  as  follows :  "  Quod  ego  audiens,  ad 
eundem  prfevaricatorem,  qui  inordinate  ordinatus  est  protinus  misi 
ut  omnino  missarum  solemnia  celebrare  nullo  modo  prsesumeret, 
nisi  prius  a  serenissimis  dominis    cognoscerem,   si  hoc   fieri   ipsi 
jussissent,  quod  ei  sub  excommunicationis  interpositione  mandavi." 
Gregor.  Epist.  Lib.  iv.  Indict,  xm.  ep.  xxxiv;  Opp.  Tom.  iv.  col. 
140,  c.] 


86  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

gory  should  judge  him1,  juxta  statuta  canonica2 ;  and 
Gregory  himself  pleads,  "  quicquid  esset  canonicum 
faceremus3  ". 

Thus  S.  W.'s  cause  is  killed  twice  by  his  own 
'  perfect '  instance :  for  if  Saint  Gregory  took  the 
judgment  upon  him  in  obedience  to  the  Emperor, 
and  did  proceed,  and  was  to  proceed  in  judging  ac- 
cording to  the  Canons,  where  was  then  the  universal 
Monarchy  ? 

Yet  it  is  confessed  by  Dr  Hammond,  which  is  a 
full  answer  to  all  the  other  (not  so  '  perfect '  instances), 
"  that  in  case  of  injury  done  to  any  by  a  Primate  or 
Patriarch  (there  being  no  lawful  superior,  who  had 
power  over  him)  the  injured  person  sometimes  made 
his  complaint  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  being  the 
most  eminent  person  in  the  Church ;  and  in  such  case 
he  questionless  might,  and  ought  in  all  fraternal 
charity,  to  admonish  the  Primate  or  Patriarch  what 
his  duty  was,  and  disclaim  communion  with  him,  un- 
less he  reform4". 

But  it  ought  to  be  shewn  that  Gregory  did  form- 
ally excommunicate  any  such  Primate  or  Patriarch, 
or  juridically  and  authoritively  act  in  any  such  cause, 
without  the  express  license  of  the  Emperor, — which 
not  being  done,  his  instances  are  answered :  besides, 

1  [i.  e.  the  Primate  of  Byzacium,  and  not  the  Bishop  of  Salona, 
last  mentioned.] 

2  [Above,  p.  85.] 

3  ["  Tamen  piissimus  imperator  admonuit,  ut  transmitteremus, 
et  quicquid  esset  canonicum  faceremus."    Greg.  Epist.  Lib.  vn. 
ep.  Ixv.  col.  276,  D.] 

4  [Dispatcher  Dispatcht,  chap.  v.  sect.  ix.  §  50 ;  Works,  Vol.  n. 
p.  296.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  87 

Saint  Gregory  always  pleads  the  ancient  Canons, 
which  is  far  from  any  claim  of  Universal  Pastorship 
by  Divine  right,  or  donation  of  Christ  to  Saint  Peter. 
"  I  appeal,"  saith  Doctor  Hammond,  "  to  S.  W.  whe- 
ther that  were  the  interpretation  of'secundum  Canones', 
and  yet  he  knows,  that  no  other  tenure  but  that  will 
stand  him  in  stead1". 

Indeed,  "the  unhappiness  is,"  as  the  Doctor  ob- 
serves 2,  "  that  such  acts,  at  first  but  necessary  fraternal 
charity,  were  by  ambitious  men  drawn  into  example, 
and  means  of  assuming  power  ;  which  yet  as  they 
pretend  from  Christ  to  St  Peter,  on  the  score  of 
Universal  Pastorship,  cannot  be  more  vehemently 
prejudiced  by  any  thing,  than  by  these  examples, 
which  being  rightly  considered,  pretend  no  higher 
than  ecclesiastical  Canons,  and  the  universal  Laws  of 
charity  ; . . .  but  never  made  claim  to  any  supremacy  of 
power  over  all  Bishops  by  Divine  institution  ". 

It  yet  appears  not  that  Saint  Gregory  practised 
the  thing,  but  to  avoid  arrogance  disclaims  the  name 
of  Universal  Bishop. 

T.  C.  against  my  Lord  of  Canterbury3  goes  ano-  fObjec- 
ther  way  to  work  :  he  grants  the  title,  and  also  the 
thing  signified  by  it,  to  be  both  renounced  by  Saint 
Gregory  ;  but  distinguishes  of  the  term  '  Universal 
Bishop'  into  grammatical,  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others  from  being  properly  Bishops,  and  metaphorical, 

i  [Ibid.  §  51.]  2  [ibid.] 

3  [Labyrinthus  Cantuariensis,  p.  197.  §  3.  In  this  instance,  as  in 
a  few  others,  the  text  of  Fuljwood  reads  A.  C.,  which  was  the 
assumed  title  of  Fisher ;  whereas  the  author  of  the  Labyrinthus 
(to  which  Stillingfleet  replied)  was  T.  C.  Thomas  Carwell,  alias 
Thorold.] 


88  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

whereby  the  Bishops  are  secured,  as  such,  in  their 
respective  dioceses,  yet  all  of  them  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Universal  Bishop,  viz.  of  Rome. 

This  distinction  Doctor  Stillingfleet1  destroys,  not 
more  elaborately  than  fully  and  perfectly  :  shewing, 
that  it  is  impossible  Saint  Gregory  should  under- 
stand the  term  'Universal  Bishop'  in  that  strict 
grammatical  sense;  for  the  reason2  why  this  title  was 
refused,  was  because  it  seemed  to  diminish  the  honour 
of  other  Bishops,  when  it  was  oifered  the  Bishops  of 
Rome  in  a  Council  of  six  hundred  and  thirty  Bishops ; 
who  cannot  be  imagined  to  divest  themselves  by  their 
kindness  of  their  very  office, — though  they  hazarded 
somewhat  of  their  honour.  Can  we  think  the  Council, 
that  gave  the  same  title  to  John,  intended  thus  to 
depose  themselves  ?  How  comes  it  to  pass,  that  none 
of  John's  or  Cyriacus's  successors  did  ever  challenge 
this  title,  in  that  literal  sense,  if  so  it  was  understood  ? 

But  to  waive  many  things  impertinent,  it  is  evi- 
dent Saint  Gregory  understood  the  title  metaphori- 
cally, from  the  reasons  he  gives  against  it ;  which 
also  equally  serve  to  prove  against  S.  W.3  that  it  was 
not  so  much  the  title  as  the  authority  of  an  Universal 
Bishop,  which  he  so  much  opposed. 

He  argueth  thus  to  John  the  Patriarch :  "  What 
wilt  thou  answer  to  Christ  the  Head  of  the  Universal 
Church  in  the  day  of  judgment,  who  dost  endeavour 

1  [Vindication  of  Archbp  Laud,  Vol.  n.  pp.  226,  et  seqq.J 

2  [.  .  .  "  omnium  sacerdotum  honor  adimitur,  dum  ab  uno  sibi 
dcmenter  arrogatur,"  etc.     Greg.  Epist.  Lib.  iv.  Indict,    xm.  cp. 
xxxii.  col.  137,  E.] 

3  [Above,  p.  85.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  89 

to  subject  all  his  members  to  thee,  under  the  name  of 
Universal  Bishop1?" 

Again,  doth  he  not  "  arise  to  the  height  of  singu- 
larity, that  he  is  subject  to  none,  but  rules  over  all2?" 
And  can  you  have  a  more  perfect  description  of  the 
present  Pope  than  is  here  given  ?  Or  is  it  the  title 
or  the  power,  that  makes  him  subject  to  none,  that 
'  rules  over  all  ? ' 

Again,  he  imitates  the3  pride  of  Lucifer,  endea- 
vouring to  be  Head  (not  sure  in  title,  but  power)  of 
the  Church  triumphant,  as  the  Pope  of  the  Church 
militant :  exalting  his  throne  (not  his  name),  as  Gre- 
gory adds,  above  the  stars  of  God,  viz,  the  Bishops, 
and  the  height  of  the  clouds4. 

Again,  Saint  "  Peter  was  the  first  member  of  the 
Church :  Paul,  Andrew,  and  John,  what  are  they  else 
but  Heads  of  particular  Churches  ?  And  yet  they 
are  all  members  of  the  Church  under  one  Head5", 
(i.  e.  Christ,  as  before6  he  had  said) : — we  see  he  allows 
not  Peter  himself  to  be  Head  of  the  Church.  "  None 
that  was  truly  holy,  was  ever  called  by  that  name  of 


1  ["  Tu  quid    Christo,    universalis    sanctse   ecclesise   capiti   in 
cxtremi  judicii  es  dicturus  examine,  qui  cuncta  ejus  membra  ti- 
bimet  conaris  universalis  appellatione  supponere  ?"  Lib.  iv.  Indict, 
xin.  ep.  xxxviii;  Opp.  Tom.  iv.  col.  145,  D.] 

2  [.  . .  "ad  culmen  conatus  est  singularitatis  erumpere  ut  et 
nulli  subesse,  et  solus  omnibus  prseesse  videretur?"    Ibid.J 

3  [Ibid.] 

4  [Ibid.     Gregory  here  quotes  Isaiah  xiv.  12 — 15.] 

5  ["  Certe  Petrus  apostolus  primum  membrum  sanctse  et  univer- 
salis ecclesise  est.     Paulus,  Ai\dreas,  Johannes,  quid  aliud  quam 
singularium  sunt  plebium  capita?    Et  tamen  sub  uno  capite  omnes 
membra  sunt  ecclesia;."    Ibid.  col.  146,  A.] 

6  [Above,  note  1.] 


90  PRESCRIPTION.  [CiiAi>.  VI. 

Universal  Bishop1 :" — which  he  makes  to  be  the  same 
with  the  Head  of  the  Church. 

But  lastly,  suppose  St  Gregory  did  mean,  that 
this  title  in  its  strict  grammatical  sense  was  to  be 
abhorred,  and  not  as  metaphorically  taken.  What 
hath  the  Pope  gained,  who  at  this  day  bears  that  title 
in  the  highest  and  strictest  sense  imaginable  ?  as  the 
Doctor2  proves  ;  and  indeed  [it]  needs  no  proof,  being 
evident  of  itself,  and  to  the  observation  of  the  whole 
world.  Thus  all  the  hard  words  of  St  Gregory  ut- 
tered so  long  agon,  against  such  as  admitted  or 
desired  that  title,  unavoidably  fall  upon  the  modern 
Roman  Bishops,  that  take  upon  them  to  be  the  sole 
Pastors  of  the  Church  ;  and  say  that  they  are  (Ecu- 
menical Bishops,  and  that  all  jurisdiction  is  derived 
from  them.  They  are  '  Lucifers '  and  '  Princes  of 
Pride';  using  a  '  vain,  new,  rash,  foolish,  proud,  pro- 
fane, erroneous,  wicked,  hypocritical,  singular,  pre- 
sumptuous, blasphemous,  name;'  as  that  holy  Pope 
inveighed  against  it.  Moreover,  as  he  also  adds,  'they 
transgress  God's  laws,  violate  the  Canons,  dishonour 
the  Church,  despise  their  brethren,  and  cause  Schism13. 

But  it  is  said4,  that  'Pope  Victor  excommunicated 
the  Asian  Churches  all  at  once.  Therefore  (saith 
A.  C.)  the  Pope  had  of  right  some  authority  over  the 

1  [. . .  "  quo   (nomine)  vocari  nullus  prsesumpsit,  qui  vcraciter 
sanctus  fuit."     Ibid.] 

2  [Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  Vol.  n.  pp.  232,  et  seqq.] 

3  [Cf.  Lib.  iv.  epp.  32,  34,  36,  38,  39  ;  Lib.  vi.  epp.  24,  28,  30, 31 ; 
Lib.  vn.  ep.  70 ;  passim.] 

4  [See  Archbp  Laud's  Conference  with  Fisher,  sect.  xxv.  §13, 
p.  150.  ed.  Oxf.  1839 ;    and  Bp  Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  Vol.  n. 
pp.  238,  239.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  91 

Asian  Bishops,  and  by  consequence  over  the  whole 
Church  ;  and  this  appears  in  that  Irenaeus,  in  the 
name  of  the  Gallican  Bishops,  writes  to  Victor  not  to 
proceed  so  rashly  in  this  action ;  as  appears  in  Euse- 
bius'. 

(1)  We  answer,  that  those  Bishops  among  whom  Solution. 
Irengeus  was  one,  did  severely  rebuke  that  Pope  for 
offering  to  excommunicate  those  Asian  Churches l : — 
therefore  they  did  not  believe  him  to  be  the  supreme, 
infallible  Pastor  of  the  whole  Church. 

(2)  His  letters  declaring  that  excommunication, 
not  pleasing  all  his  own  Bishops,  they  countermanded2 
him : — surely  not   thinking   him   to   be   what    Popes 
would  now  be  esteemed. 

(3)  Hence  Cardinal  Perron  is  angry  with  Euse- 
bius,  and  calls  him  an  Arian,   and  an  enemy  to  the 
Church  of  Rome ;  for  hinting,  that  though  the  Pope 
did  declare  them  excommunicate,  yet  it  took  no  effect, 
because  other  Bishops  continued  still  in  communion 
with  them3. 

(4)  But  the  force  of  the  whole  argument  leans 
upon  a  plain  mistake  of  the  ancient  discipline,  both 
in  the  nature,  and  the  root  or  ground  of  it. 

For  the  nature  of  ancient  excommunication,  espe-  Mistake  of 
cially  when  practised  by  one  Church  against  another,  and  Root 

1-  -i  '        i  '  •  n  °^  Disci- 

did  not  imply  a  positive  act  of  authority,  but  a  nega-  pline. 
tive  act  of  charity  ;  or  a  declaring  against  the  com- 
munion of  such  with  themselves ;  and  therefore  was 

1  [•Sepoirai    8e    KOI   at   rovrutv   (fxavai,   ir\r)KTiK(t>Tfpov  KadairTop.fva>v 
rov  BiKTopos.      'Ei>   ols  KOI   6   Elprjvalos,   K.  T.  X.      Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 
Lib.  v.  c.  24.  Tom.  i.  p.  369 ;  ed.  Oxon.  1838.] 

2  [' AvTnrapa.Kf\fvovTat  8f)ra  avrco,  K.  T.  X.      Ibid.] 

3  [Cardinal  du  Perron's  Reply  to  the  King  of  Great  Britain, 
Book  ii.  chap.  vi.  p.  163,  Engl.  Transl.  Douay,  1630.] 


92  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP  VI. 

done  by  equals  to  equals,  and  sometimes  by  inferiors 
to  superiors.  In  equals, — thus,  Johannes  Antiochenus l, 
in  the  Ephesine  Council,  excommunicated  Cyril,  Pa- 
triarch of  Alexandria ;  and  in  inferiors  (in  the  sense 
of  our  Roman  adversaries) — for  the  African  Bishops 
excommunicated  Pope  Vigilius2.  Hence  also,  Acacius3, 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  expunged  the  name 
of  Felix,  Bishop  of  Rome,  out  of  the  diptychs  of  the 
Church ;  and  Hilary  anathematized  Pope  Liberius4. 
Therefore  Victor's  declaring  the  Asian  Churches  to  be 
excommunicate,  is  no  argument  of  his  power  over  them. 

Secondly,  the  root  or  ground  of  the  ancient  dis- 
cipline is  also  as  plainly  mistaken, — which  was  not 
authority  always,  but  care  and  charity.  Care,  I  say, 
not  only  of  themselves  who  used  it,  but  also  of  the 
Church  that  was  censured,  and  indeed  of  the  whole 
Church. 

It  is  here  proper  to  consider,  that  though  Bishops 
had  their  peculiar  seats,  and  limits  for  their  jurisdic- 

1  [The   circumstances   are   fully    related  by  Fleury,    Histoire 
Eccles.  Liv.  xxv.  s.  45.] 

2  Victor  Tununensis,  Chronicon,  p.  10,  [col.  1 ;   apud  Thesaur. 
Temporum,  opera  J.  Scaliger.  Amstelod.  1658 :  "  Post  consulatum 
Basilii,  v.  c.  anno  x.     Africani  antistites  Vigilium  Romanum  epi- 
scopum    damnatorem    HI.     Capitulorum   synodaliter   a   Catholica 
communione,  reservato  ei  poenitentiae  loco,  recludunt,"  etc.      Cf. 
Fleury,  Liv.  xxxm.  s.  26,  32.     In  the  sixth  General  Council,  Hono- 
rius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  was  anathematized  as  a  Monothelite.     See 
Bingham,  Antiquities,  Book  xvi.  chap.  iii.  s.  12,  and  Dr  Routh's 
Opuscula,  Vol.  n.  p.  153,  and  notes.] 

3  [Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  Liv.  xxx.  s.  17.] 

4  ["Iterum   tibi    anathema   et    tertio,  prsevaricator    Liberi!" 
Fragment.  S.  Hilar.  ;  Opp.  coll.   426,  427;  ed.  Paris.   1631.     See 
Bower's  '  Lives  of  the  Popes,'  Vol.  i.  pp.  136, 137.  Lond.  1748.  The 
Abbe  Fleury  makes  no   attempt  to  deny  the  apostasy  of  Liberius. 
"  II  renoi^a  a  la  communion  de  saint  Athanaso,  et  embrassa  celle 
des  Orientaux,  c'est-a-dire,  des  Aricns."   Hist.  Eccl.  Liv.  xm.  s.  46.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  93 

tions,  yet  they  had  all  a  charitive  inspection  and  care 
of  that  Universal  Church,  and  sometimes  denomina- 
tions accordingly. 

Hence  we  deny  not  that  the  ancient  Bishops  of 
Rome  deservedly  gained  the  title  of  (Ecumenical 
Bishops, — a  thing  of  so  great  moment  in  the  contro- 
versy, that,  if  well  considered,  might  advance  very  far 
towards  the  ending  of  it.  For  so  the  title  hath  been 
given  to  others,  as  well  as  the  Bishop  of  Rome ;  and 
therefore,  it  could  not  argue  any  authority  peculiar  to 
him.  Also  the  same  universal  care  of  the  Church 
(the  occasion  of  the  title)  hath  been  acknowledged  in 
others  as  well  as  in  him  ;  and  indeed  the  power,  which 
is  the  root  of  that  care,  as  the  occasion  of  that  title, 
is  founded  in  all  Bishops. 

Here  are  three  things  noted,  which  may  be  dis-  Three 
tinctly  considered. 

(1)  Power  is  given  to  all  Bishops  with  an  imme- 
diate respect  to  the  good  of  the  whole  Church ;  so 
that  if  it  were  possible,  that  every  particular  Bishop 
could  take  care  of  the  whole  Church,  they  have 
authority  enough  in  their  function  to  do  it, — though 
it  be  impossible,  and  indeed  inconsistent  with  peace 
and  order,  that  all  should  undertake  it.  And  there- 
fore they  have  their  bounds  and  limits  set  them  ;  hence 
their  particular  dioceses :  therefore,  as  St  Cyprian, 
'  there  is  but  one  Bishopric  in  the  whole  world,  a  part 
of  which  is  held  by  every  Bishop1'. 

1  ["  Episcopatus  unus  est,  cujus  a  singulis  in  solidum  pars 
tenetur."  De  Unitate  Ecclesise,  cap.  v.  '  In  solidum'  is  a  law-phrase, 
and  signifies  that  part  of  this  one  episcopacy  is  so  committed  to 
every  single  bishop,  that  he  is  nevertheless  charged  with  taking 
care  of  the  whole.  Leslie's  Answer  to  the  Bp  of  Meaux:  Works, 
Vol.  m.  p.  231;  Oxf.  1832.] 


94  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

(2)  Thus  we  find  in  the  primitive  Church,  that 
every  Bishop  had  his  particular  charge,  yet  they  still 
regarded  the  common  good ;  extending  their  care 
(the  second  thing  observed)  sometimes  beyond  their 
own  division,  by  their  counsel  and  direction, — yea, 
and  exercised  their  functions  sometimes  in  other 
places.  Of  which  Dr  Stillingfleet1  gives  many  in- 
stances in  Poly  carp,  Ignatius,  Irenseus,  St  Cyprian, 
Faustus. 

Yea,  upon  this  very  ground,  Nazianzen2  saith  of 
St  Cyprian,  that  '  he  not  only  governed  the  Churches 
of  Carthage,  but  all  the  western  parts,  and  even 
almost  all  the  eastern,  southern,  and  northern  too,  as 
far  as  he  went'. 

Arsenius  speaks  more  home  to  Athanasius3 :  "  We 
embrace  (saith  he)  peace  and  unity  with  the  Catholic 
Church,  over  which,  thou,  through  the  grace  of  God, 
dost  preside".  Whence  Gregory  Nazianzen4  saith  of 
Athanasius,  that  'he  made  laws  for  the  whole  earth'. 
And  St  Basil5  writes  to  him,  'that  he  had  care  of  all 
the  Churches  as  of  his  own';  and  calls  him  '  the  Head 
and  Chief  of  all'. 

And  St  Chrysostom6  in  the  praise  of  Eustathius, 

1  Rational  Account,  pp.  424,  425 ;  [Vol.  n.  p.  216,  new  edit.] 

2  Orat.  xvin.  p.  281,  [A.  Opp.  Paris.   1619 ;  Ov  yap  rfjs  Kapx^j- 
&ovia>v  7rpoKa6(£fTai  p.6vov  (KK\T)<rlas,  .  .  .  aXXa    KOI    Tracnjs  rrjs  (cnrfpiov, 
K.  r.  X.] 

3  Athanas.   ad  Imperator.   Constant.   Apol.   [Opp.  Tom.  i.  p. 
786,    D.        Kai    fiiJLfis   d<nra£6p.fvot    TTJV    flprjvrjv    Kal    fvaxriv    Trpos    rrjv 
KadoXiK^v  fKK\ij<riav,  r)s  <n>  Kara  \apw  Qfov  Trpotoraerat,  K.  r.  X.] 

4  Orat.  XXI.  p.  392,  [c :   vopodfrel  Se  rij  olKovp.firrj  TraXii/.] 

5  Ep.  LH.  [Opp-  Tom.  m.  p.  79 ;  ed.  Paris.  1638.] 

6  Opp.  Tom.  v.  p.  631.  ed.  Savil.    [Tom.  n.  607,  B.  ed.  Paris. 
1718 ;     Km    yap    r/v   TreTraiSeu/neVos    KaXeoy    Trapa    rrjs    TOV    HvevfiaTos 

s,  on  rijs  fKKXr/crlus  Trpoeo-Twra  OVK  tKthnfS  p-ovrjs  Kr/^fa-dai  8tl .  .  . 


CHAT.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  95 

the  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  saith,  that  ;  he  was  in- 
structed by  the  Divine  Spirit,  that  he  was  not  only  to 
have  care  of  that  Church  over  which  he  was  set,  but 
of  the  whole  Church  throughout  the  world'. 

Now  what  is  this  but  to  say  in  effect,  these  great 
men  were  Universal  Bishops,  though  indeed,  they  none 
of  them  had  power  of  jurisdiction  over  any  Church 
but  their  own ;  as,  notwithstanding  the  general  care 
of  the  ancient  good  Bishops  of  Home,  had  of  the 
good  of  the  whole — and  their  influence  and  reverence 
in  order  thereunto — the  Bishops  of  Rome  had  not. 

(3)  Upon  the  former  ground  and  occasion,  some 
Bishops  in  the  most  famous  Churches  had  the  honour 
of  the  title  of  (Ecumenical  or  Universal  Bishops. 

But  here  we  must  confess,  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
had  the  advantage,  being  the  most  famous  of  all ; 
both  by  reason  of  their  own  primitive  merit,  and  the 
glory  of  the  empire,  especially  the  latter. 

The  Roman  empire  was  itself  accounted  '  Uni- 
versal'; and  the  greatness  of  the  empire  advanced 
the  Church  to  the  same  title,  and  consequently  the 
Bishops  of  that  Church  above  others. 

1.  That  the  Roman  empire  was  so,  appears  by  a 
multitude  of  testimonies,  making  orbis  Romanus  and 
orbis  humanus  synonymous,  collected  by  Dr  Stilling- 
fleet1.  Hence  Ammianus  Marcellinus  calls  Rome 
caput  mundi,  'the  head  of  the  World';  and  the  Roman 
Senate  Asylum  mundi  totius.  And  it  was  usual  then 
to  call  whatever  was  out  of  the  Roman  empire  bar- 

dXXo  /cai  Tfa(Tf]s  rfjs  Kara  rr/v  olKovpfvijv  KeijueVijy.  Other  proofs  of 
this  position  may  be  seen  in  Bingham,  Book  n.  chap,  v.] 

1   Rational  Account,  pp.  425,  426 ;  [Vol.  n.  pp.  218,  219.  new  ed.] 


96  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

baria,  as  the  same  Doctor '  proves  at  large.  Therefore 
that  empire  was  called  in  Greek  y  o'lKov^ev^. 

2.  Some  Bishops  in  the  great  Churches  in  the 
Roman  empire  were  called  CEcumenical,  as  that  re- 
lates to  the  v\  oiKovnevrj,  viz.  the  Roman  empire.  This 
appears  because  the  very  ground  of  the  advancement  of 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  was  the  greatness  of 
the  city,  as  appears  in  the  Councils  of  Constantinople 
andChalcedon3  about  it;  and  the  privileges  of  old  Rome 
gave  the  measure  of  the  privileges  of  new  Rome. 

And  in  probability,  the  ground  of  that  Patriarch's 
usurping  the  title  of  CEcumenical  Patriarch  was  but 
to  correspond  with  the  greatness  of  his  city,  which 
was  then  the  seat  of  the  empire ;  as  Dr  Stillingfleet 
very  reasonably  conjectures4. 

Moreover,  all  the  three  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria, 
Antioch,  and  Constantinople,  had  expressions  given 
them  tantamount  to  that  title  : — '  the  government  of 
the  whole  world',  'the  care  of  all  the  Churches',  'the 
government  as  it  were  of  the  whole  body  of  the 
Church',  as  Dr  Stillingfleet5  particularly  shews.  But 
most  clear  and  full  to  that  purpose,  as  he  observes,  is 
the  testimony  of  Theodoret  concerning  Nestorius 
being  made  Patriarch  of  Constantinople :  "  He  was 
intrusted  with  the  government  of  the  Catholic  Church 
of  the  orthodox  at  Constantinople,  and  thereby  of  the 
whole  world6". 


i   Ibid.  2  Acts  xi.  28.  [Luke  ii.  1] 

3  [See  above,  p.  35,  note  1.] 

4  [Vol.  n.  p.  219.    Cf.  Bingham,  Book  n.  chap.  xvii.  s.  21.] 
*  [Ibid.] 

«  Theodor.  Haeret.  Fabul.  Lib.  iv.  c.  12 ;  Opp.  Tom.  iv.  p.  245. 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  97 

Where  shall  we  find  so  illustrious  a  testimony  for 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  ?  Or,  if  we  could,  we  see  it 
would  prove  nothing  peculiar  to  him. 

Therefore,  if  the  Council  of  Chalcedon1  did  offer 
the  title  of  Universal  Patriarch,  or  if  they  did 
not, — but  as  the  truth  rather  is,  some  papers,  re- 
ceived in  that  Council,  did  give  him  that  title, — 
it  signifieth  nothing  to  prove  the  Pope's  universal 
authority. 

Therefore  Simon  Vigorius2  ingenuously  confesseth, 
that  '  when  the  Western  Fathers  call  the  Roman 
Bishops  Bishops  of  the  universal  Church,  they  do  it 
from  the  custom  of  their  Churches,  not  that  they 
look  on  them  as  Universal  Bishops  of  the  whole 
Church,  but  in  the  same  sense,  that  the  Patriarchs  of 
Constantinople,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  are 
called  so ;  or  as  they  are  universal  over  the  Churches 
under  their  own  patriarchate  ;  or  that  in  (Ecumenical 
Councils,  they  preside  over  the  whole  Church : '  and 
after  acknowledgeth,  that  the  title  of  Universal  or 
(Ecumenical  Bishop  makes  nothing  for  the  Pope's 
Monarchy. 

It  is  too  evident,  that  the  humble  Pope  Gregory 
seems  to  glorify  himself,  while  he  so  often  mentions 


[A.  ed.  1642  :..  .rJjs  Kara  KcwovavTivoinroXiv  ra>v  opdodof-uv  Ka8o\tKfjs 
tKitXijcrias  TTJV  irpoeftpiav  Trtoreuerat,  ovSec  Se  TJTTOV  KOI  rijs  oiKOu/ior;? 
aTracn;?.] 

1  [Gregory  (Epist.  Lib.  iv.  Indict,  xin.  ep.  xxxii.)  speaks  as  if 
this  title  was  formally  offered  and  declined.     The  true  state  of  the 
case  is  somewhat  different,  as  Bishop  Stillingfleet  shews  from  the 
Acts  of  the  Council.     'Vindication;'  Vol.  n.  pp.  220,  221.] 

2  Comment,  ad  Resp.  Synodal.  Concil.  Basil,  p.  37 ;  [quoted  by 
Stillingfleet,  Vol.  n.  p.  221.] 

7 


98  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

that  offer  of  the  title  of  Universal,  and  his  refusing 
of  it,  and  inveighing  against  it ;  and  that  these  were 
engines  used  by  him  to  deprive  others  of  the  same 
title,  if  not  to  advance  his  own  see  to  the  power 
signified  by  it ; — though  if  he  did  indeed  design  any 
such  thing,  it  is  an  argument  that  he  was  ashamed 
openly  to  claim  or  own  it,  while  he  rails  against  the 
title  (in  the  effects  of  it,  which  depended  upon  the 
power  itself)  as  such  an  abominable  thing. 

However,  if  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  did  indeed 
offer  (or  only  record)  that  title  to  Gregory,  it  is  more 
than  manifest,  it  could  not  possibly  be  intended  to 
carry  in  it  the  authority  of  the  whole  Church,  or  any 
more  than  that  qualified  sense  of  Vigorius  before 
mentioned ;  because  other  Patriarchs  had  the  same 
title, — and  we  see  no  reason  to  believe,  that  that 
Council  intended  to  subject  themselves  and  all  Patri- 
archs to  the  authority  of  the  Western  Pope,  contrary 
to  their  great  design  of  advancing  the  see  of  Con- 
stantinople to  equal  privileges  with  that  of  Rome ;  as 
appears  by  their  fifteenth  Session,  Canon  xxvm,  and 
their  Synodical  Epistle  to  Pope  Leo1. 

Thus  the  bare  title  is  no  argument, — and  by  what 
hath  been  said  touching  the  grandeur  of  the  Roman 
empire,  and  the  answerable  greatness  and  renown  of 
the  Roman  Church,  frequent  recourse  had  unto  it 
from  other  Churches,  for  counsel  and  assistance,  is  of 


1  [See  this  letter  in  Labbe,  Concil.  Tom  iv.  834,  et  seqq.  Leo 
opposed  the  twenty-eighth  Canon  of  Chalcedon,  on  the  plea  that  it 
violated  the  sixth  Nicene  Canon,  which  gave  the  second  rank  to 
Alexandria.  Notwithstanding  his  opposition,  the  Canon  stood  its 
ground.] 


CHAP.  VI.J  PRESCRIPTION.  .99 

no  more  force  to  conclude  her  supremacy,  nor  any 
matter  of  wonder  at  all. 

Experience  teacheth  us  that  it  is  and  will  be  so  in 
all  cases ;  not  only  a  renowned  Lawyer,  Physician, 
but  Divine,  shall  have  great  resort,  and  almost  uni- 
versal addresses.  An  honest  and  prudent  countryman 
shall  be  upon  all  commissions ;  the  Church  of  Home 
was  then  famous  both  for  learning,  wisdom,  truth, 
piety,  and  I  may  add  tradition  itself,  as  well  as  great- 
ness, both  in  the  eye  of  the  world  and  all  other 
Churches ;  and  her  zeal  and  care  for  general  good, 
keeping  peace,  and  spreading  the  grace  of  the  Gospel, 
was  sometimes  admirable.  And  now  no  wonder  that 
applications  in  difficult  cases  were  frequently  and 
generally  made  hither,  which  at  first  were  received 
and  answered  with  love  and  charity,  though  soon  after 
the  ambition  of  Popes  knew  how  to  advance,  and 
hence  to  assume  authority. 

From  this,  we  see,  it  was  no  great  venture  (how- 
ever T.  C.  term  it),  for  Archbishop  Laud  to  grapple 
with  the  authority  of  Irenaeus,  who  saith l,  '  To  this 
Church  (meaning  Rome)  propter  potentiorem  principa- 
litatem,  for  the  more  powerful  principality  of  it,  it  is 
necessary  that  every  Church,  that  is  the  faithful 
undique,  should  have  recourse ;  in  qua  semper  ab  his 
qni  sunt  undique  conservata  est  ea  quce  est  ab  Apostolis 
traditio.' 

1  [Adv.  Hseres.]  Lib.  m.  c.  3.  [Tertullian  has  a  similar  passage 
(De  Prsescriptione,  cap.  xxxvi.)  where  he  refers  the  disputant,  if  in 
Achaia,  to  Corinth  ;  if  in  proconsular  Asia,  to  Ephesus  ;  if  in  Italy 
or  Africa,  to  Rome ;  all  these  being  apostolical  Churches,  and 
therefore  likely  to  have  retained  the  true  doctrine.  See  Dr  Routh's 
Opuscula,  Vol.  i.  p.  151,  and  note,  p.  206.] 

7—2 


100  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

His  lordship  seems  to  grant  the  whole, — Home 
being  then  the  imperial  city,  and  so  a  Church  of 
more  powerful  authority  than  any  other,  yet  not  the 
head  of  the  Church  Universal.  This  may  suffice 
without  the  pleasant  criticizing  about  undique,  with 
which,  if  you  have  a  mind  to  be  merry,  you  may 
entertain  yourself  in  Dr  Stillingfleet1. 

But  indeed  A.  C.  is  guilty  of  many  mistakes  in 
reasoning,  as  well  as  criticizing :  he  takes  it  for 
granted,  that  this  principality  is  attributed  by  Irenaeus 
here  to  Rome,  as  the  Church,  not  as  the  city.  (2) 
That  the  necessity  arising  hence  was  concerning  the 
Faith,  and  not  secular  affairs ;  neither  of  which  is 
certain,  or  in  likelihood  true2. 

Besides,  if  both  were  granted,  the  necessity  is  not 
such  as  supposeth  duty  or  authority  in  the  faithful,  or 
in  Rome ;  but  (as  the  sense  makes  evident)  a  neces- 
sity of  expedience,  Rome  being  most  likely  to  give 
satisfaction  touching  that  tradition  about  which  that 
dispute  was. 

Lastly,  the  principality  here  implies  not  proper 
authority,  or  power  to  decide  the  controversy :  one 
kind  of  authority  it  doth  imply,  but  not  such  as 
T.  C.  inquired  for, — not  the  authority  of  a  governor, 
but  of  a  conservator  ;  of  a  conservator  of  that  truth, 
that  being  made  known  by  her,  might  reasonably  end 
the  quarrel ;  not  of  an  absolute  governor,  that  might 
command  the  Faith,  or  the  agreement  of  the  dis- 
senters. This  is  evident,  (1)  Because  the  dispute 
was  about  a  matter  of  fact,  whether  there  was  any 

1  p.  441,  etc.   [Vol.  n.  pp.  243,  et  seqq.  new  edit.] 

2  p.  444,  [Vol.  II.  p.  247.J 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  101 

such  tradition  or  not,  as  the  Valentinians  pretended. 
(2)  Because  Irenaeus  refers  them  to  Rome  under  this 
reason,  conservata  est,  '  the  Apostolical  traditions  are 
kept  there,'  being  brought  by  the  faithful  undique 
thither ;  and  therefore  brought  thither,  because  of 
the  more  principality  of  the  city  all  persons  resorted 
thither. 

Lastly,  it  is  acknowledged  that  Pope   Gregory1  objection. 
doth  say,  that  '  if  there  be  any  fault  in  Bishops,  it  is 
subject  to  the  Apostolical  see ;   but  when  their  fault 
doth   not  exact  it,  that  then  upon  the  account  of 
humility  all  were  his  equals.' 

Indeed,  this  smells  of  his  ambition  and  design  Solution, 
before  spoken  of;  but  if  there  be  any  truth  in  it,  it 
must  agree  with  the  Canon  Saint  Gregory  himself 
records,  and  suppose  the  faulty  Bishop  hath  no  proper 
Primate  or  Patriarch  to  judge  him ;  also  with  the 
proceeding  then  before  him,  and  suppose  complaint 
to  the  Emperor,  and  the  Emperor's  subjecting  the 
cause  to  the  Apostolical  see ;  as  that  cause  was  by 
Saint  Gregory's  own  confession2. 

However  what  he  seems  here  to  assume  to  his 
own  see,  he  blows  away  with  the  same  breath,  deny- 
ing any  ordinary  jurisdiction  and  authority  to  be  in 
that  see  over  all  Bishops,  while  he  supposes  a  fault 
necessary  to  their  subjection,  and  that  while  there  is 
no  fault  all  are  equal : — which  is  not  true,  where  by 

1  [Gregor.  Epist.  Lib.  vn.  Indict,  n.  ep.  Ixv.  col.  276,  E  :  "Nam 
quod  se  dicit  sedi  Apostolicse  subjici,  si  qua  culpa  in  Episcopis 
invcnitur,  nescio  quis  ci  Episcopus  subjcctus  non  sit.     Cum  vero 
culpa  non  cxigit,  omncs  sccundum  rationcm  humilitatis  rcquales 
sunt."] 

2  [Sec  above,  p.  85.] 


102  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

a  lawful  standing  ordinary  government  there  is  an 
eternal  necessity  of  superiority  and  inferiority. 

But  of  this  I  had  spoken  before,  had  I  thought 
(as  I  yet  do  not)  that  there  is  any  weight  or  con- 
sequence in  the  words. 

Further  evidence,  that  the  ancient  Popes  them- 
selves, though  they  might  thirst  after  it,  did  not 
believe  that  they  were  Universal  Bishops  and  Mo- 
narchs  over  the  whole  Church,  and  that  they  did  not 
pretend  to  it  in  any  such  manner  as  to  make  the 
world  believe  it;  —  I  say,  further  evidence  of  this, 
ariseth  from  their  acknowledged  subjection  to  the 
civil  magistrate  in  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

Pope  Leo1  beggeth  the  Emperor  Theodosius 
with  tears,  'that  he  would  command'  (not  permit)  'a 
Council  to  be  held  in  Italy  :'  —  that  sure  was  not  to 
signify  his  authoritative  desires. 

That  instance  of  Pope  Agatho2,  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Emperor,  is  as  pertinent  as  the  former  ;  "  with 
praise  we  admire  your  purpose  well  pleasing  to  God" 
(not  to  the  Pope),  and  "  for  these  commands  of  yours 
we  are  rejoiced,  and  with  groans  out  of  the  depth  of 
our  heart  give  thanks  to  God."  And  many  such, 
Doctor  Hammond3  saith,  might  be  afforded. 

1  [Epist.  Decretal,  xxiv;  Opp.  p.  114.  col.  2,  D;  ed.  Paris.  1637: 
"  Omnes  partium  nostrarum  Ecclesise,  omnes  mansuetudinis  vestrse 
cum  gemitibus  et  lachrymis  supplicant  sacerdotes,  ut...generalem 
synodum  jubeatis  intra  Italiam  celebrari,"  etc.] 

2  Concil.  Tom.  v.  pp.   60,  61.  [ed.  Bin.   Paris.  1636  :  'En-el  8e 
ciicrf/SeoraTot  KOI  avdpftoraroi  /3a<riA«oi>  TTJS   <rf/3acr/itas  v/xcov  evtrtftfias 
(Tvv  eVatVa)  6avfjui£ofjLev  TTJV  Btapecrrov  Trpodetriv  .  .  .  tXapevopfvoi  Trepi  rfjs 
roiavTTjs  evcreftovs  irpodeo'eas,  fjifra  r<av  (K  (SaBovs  Tfjs  Kap8las  68vpfj.a>v 


3  [Works,  Vol.  ii.  p.  290,  $  5.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  103 

Pope  Gregory  received  the  power  of  hearing  and 
determining  causes  several  times  (as  he  himself  con- 
fesseth)  from  the  Emperor ;  as  we  shewed  before l. 

Hence  Pope  Eleutherius2  to  King  Lucius,  "  You 
are  the  Vicar  of  Christ :" — the  same  in  effect  which 
is  contained  in  the  laws  of  Edward  the  Confessor3. 

And  Pope  Urban4  the  Second  entertained  our 
Archbishop  Anselm,  in  the  Council  of  Bari,  with  the 
title  of  the  Pope  of  another  world,  or  (as  some  relate 
it)  the  '  Apostle  of  another  world,  and  a  Patriarch 
Avorthy  to  be  reverenced.' 

Now  when  the  Bishops  of  Rome  did  acknowledge 
that  the  civil  magistrate  had  power  to  command  the 
assembling  of  General  Councils,  and  to  command 
Popes  themselves  to  hear  and  determine  ecclesi- 
astical causes ; — when  they  acknowledged  the  King 
of  England  to  be  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  and  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  Pope  of  another  world ; — we 
may,  I  think,  safely  conclude  that  whatever  they 
thought  of  the  primacy  of  dignity,  they  did  not 
believe  themselves,  or  give  occasion  to  others  to 
believe,  that  they  had  then  the  jurisdiction  of  Eng- 
land, much  less  of  the  whole  world. 

Indeed,  the  power  of  Emperors  over  Popes  was 
exercised  severely,  and  continued  long  in  practice5. 

1  [See  above,  p.  85.] 

2  [For  the  reply  attributed  to  Eleutherius,  see  Collier,  Eccles. 
Hist.  Book  i.  cent,  i:  Vol.  I.  p.  14;  ed.  Lond.  1708.] 

3  [Leges  Edw.  Confess.  §  xvn ;  in  '  Ancient  Laws  and  Insti- 
tutes,' ed.  Thorpe,  Vol.  i.  p.  449.] 

4  [Vid.  W.  Malmesbur.  in  Anselm.  p.  223, 1.  33 ;  ed.  Francof. 
1601 ;    Archbp  Laud's  Conference  with  Fisher,  sect.  xxv.  §  x.  p. 
141,  ed.  Oxf.  1839.] 

5  Vid.  King  James's  Defence  [of  the  right  of  Kings ;  Works, 


104  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

A.  D.  654,  Constantius  bound  and  banished  Pope  Martin 
— A.  D.  963,  Otho  rejected  Pope  John  XIII.  and  made 
Leo  VIII.  Pope :  and  John  XIV.,  Gregory  V.  and 
Sylvester  II.  were  made  Popes  by  the  Otho's. — A.D. 
1007,  Henry  II.  deposed  three  Popes.  This  practice 
is  confessed  till  Gregory  VII. ;  and  before  A.D.  679, 
Popes  submitted  to  Emperors  by  purchasing  their 
investitures  of  them,  by  submissive  terms,  and  bow- 
ing the  knee  before  them. 


SECTION    VIII. 
NOR  THE  WORDS   OF   THE   IMPERIAL  LAW. 

IF  the  ancient  Councils,  or  practice,  or  Popes 
themselves,  offered  nothing  to  persuade  our  an- 
cestors to  a  belief  of  the  Pope's  universal  power  or 
possession  of  England,  certainly  we  may  despair  of 
finding  any  such  thing  in  the  ancient  Laws  of  the 
Church ; — which  are  justly  presumed  to  contain  the 
sense  and  rule  of  all.  "  Were  all  other  records  of 
antiquity  silent,"  saith  our  late  Primate1,  "the  Civil 
Law  is  proof  enough  :"  for  that  is  a  monument  of 
the  Primitive  Church ;  and  not  only  so,  it  being  the 
Imperial,  as  well  as  Canon  Law,  it  gives  us  the  reason 
and  Law  both  of  the  Church  and  the  whole  world. 

Now  what   saith  the  Law?    It  first  forbids  the 
title,  and  then  the  practice. 

pp.  408,  409.  od.  Lond.  1616.  These  and  other  similar  instances 
are  there  related  on  the  authority  of  Platina,  Baronius,  and 
Sigebert  of  Gcmblours.] 

1  [Archbp  Laud,  Conference  with  Fisher,  sect.  xxv.  $  x.  p.  141. 
ed.  1839.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  105 

Primes  sedis  Apostolus,  '  the  Patriarch  or  Bishop 
of  the  first  see,'  is  not  to  be  called  Prince  of  the 
Priests  or  Supreme  Priest1,  nor,  as  the  African  Canon 
adds,  aliquid  htijusmodi,  '  any  other  thing  of  that 
kind2.' 

The  practice  of  any  such  power  was  expressly 
forbidden,  and  not  the  proud  title  only :  the  very 
text  of  the  Law  saith,  a  Patriarcha  non  datur  Ap- 
pellatio,  '  from  a  Patriarch  there  lies  no  appeal3.' 

And  this  we  have  found  agreeable  to  the  Milevi- 
tan  Council4  (where  Saint  Augustine  was  present), 
forbidding  under  pain  of  excommunication  any  ap- 
peal to  any  foreign  Councils  or  Judicatures :  and 
this  is  again  consonant  to  the  fifth  Canon  of  Nice5, 
as  that  was  to  the  thirty-fourth  Apostolic6, — where 
the  Primate  in  every  nation  is  to  be  accounted  their 
head. 

Now  what  do  our  adversaries  say  to  this?  Indeed 
they  seem  to  be  put  to  it ;  and  though  their  wits  are  very 
pregnant  to  deliver  many  answers  (such  as  they  be) 
in  most  cases,  they  all  seem  to  join  in  one  poor  slight 
evasion  here ;  namely,  that  '  the  Laws  concerning 
appeals  did  only  concern  inferior  Clergymen,  but 
Bishops  were  allowed  to  appeal  to  Rome,  even  by  the 


1  Corpus  Juris  Canon.  Dccret.  Part  i.  Distinct,  xcix.  c.  m. 
["  Primse  sedis  Episcopus  non  appclletur  princeps  saccrdotum,  vcl 
summus  sacerdos."] 

2  [Ibid.] 

3  Cod.  Theodos.  Lib.  i.  Tit.  iv.  §  29 ;  Authent.  Collat,  ix.  Tit. 
xv.  c.  22.  %• 

4  Can.  xxu ;  [Labbc,  Concil.  Tom.  n.  1542.] 
6  [Labbe,  Concil.  Tom.  n.  32,  A.] 

6  [Patrcs  Apostol.  ed.  Cotclcr.  Tom.  i.  p.  442.] 


106  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

African  Canon,  and  acknowledged  in  that  Council's 
Epistle  to  Pope  Boniface.' 

Three  bold  sayings :  (1)  that  the  Law  concerned 
not  the  appeals  of  Bishops.  (2)  The  Council  of 
Africa  decreed  Bishops'  appeals  to  Rome.  (3)  And 
acknowledged  it  in  their  Letter  to  Pope  Boniface. 
But  are  these  things  as  truly  as  boldly  said?  For 
the  first  which  is  their  comment,  whereby  they  would 
restrain  the  sense  of  the  Laws,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  Bishops,  we  shall  consider  their  ground  for  it, 
and  then  propose  our  reason,  and  the  Law  expressly 
against  it ;  and  then  their  reasons  will  need  little 
answer. 

They  say  the  Law  reacheth  not  the  difference 
between  Patriarchs  themselves. 

But  if  there  should  happen  a  difference  betwixt 
a  Patriarch  and  the  Pope,  who  shall  decide  that  ? 
Both  these  inconveniences  are  plainly  solved  by  re- 
ferring all  such  extraordinary  difficulties  to  a  General 
Council. 

But  why  should  the  Law  allow  foreign  appeals 
to  Bishops  and  not  to  Priests  ?  Are  all  Bishops  Pa- 
triarchs ?  Is  not  a  Patriarch  over  his  Bishops,  as  well 
as  a  Bishop  over  his  Priests  ?  May  not  the  gravamen 
of  a  Priest  be  given  by  his  Bishop,  or  the  difference 
among  Priests  be  as  considerable1  to  the  Church 
sometimes  as  among  Bishops  ?  Or  hath  not  the  Uni- 
versal Pastor,  if  the  Pope  be  so,  power  over  and  care 

1  Cselestius  [who  went  to  Rome]  denied  the  necessity  of  grace, 
[and  for  his  Pelagianism  had  been  previously  condemned  by  two 
Synods  held  at  Carthage  in  A.  D.  412,  and  416.  Labbe,  Concil.  Tom. 
II.  1510,  1533.] 


CHAI>.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  107 

of  Priests  as  well  as  Bishops  ?  Or  can  the  Summum 
Imperium  receive  limits  from  Canon  or  Law?  To 
say,  that  Priests  are  forbidden  to  appeal,  but  the 
Pope  is  not  forbidden  to  receive  their  Appeals,  is 
plainly  to  cripple  the  Law,  and  to  make  it  yield  to 
all  the  inconveniences  of  foreign  appeals  against  its 
true  end. 

But  what  if  this  very  Canon,  they  pretend  to 
allow  appeals  from  Bishops  to  Rome,  do  expressly 
forbid  that  very  thing  it  is  brought  to  allow  ?  And 
it  doth  so  undeniably,  as  appears  in  the  authentic 
collection  of  the  African  Canons j ;  non  provocent  ad 
transmarina  judicia,  sed  ad  primates  suarum  provin- 
ciarum,  aut  ad  universale  Concilium,  sicut  et  de  Episcopis 
scepe  constitutum  est.  The  same  thing  '  had  often  been 
determined  in  the  case  of  Bishops.' 

Perron2  and  others  say,  '  this  clause  was  not  in  Objection, 
the  ancient  Milevitan  Canons.' 

Have  they  nothing  else  but  this  groundless  con-  Solution, 
ceit  to  support  their  universal  Pastorship  against 
express  Law,  for  four  hundred  years  after  Christ? 
Sure  it  behoved  highly  to  produce  a  true  authentic 
copy  of  those  Canons,  wherein  that  clause  is  omit- 
ted ; — which  because  they  do  not,  we  conclude  they 
cannot. 

However,  it  is  manifest,  that  the  same  thing  against 
appeals  of  Bishops  to  Rome  had  been  often  deter- 
mined, by  far  greater  testimony  than  the  bare  asser- 

1  [Vid.  Cod.  Canon.  Eccles.  African,  can.  xxvin ;  apud  Labb. 
Concil.  Tom.  n.  1064,  B.] 

2  [Reply  to  King  James,  Book  in.  chap.  x.  pp.  329,  et  seqq. 
English  Transl.  Douay.  1630.] 


108  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

tion  of  Perron  and  his  partners,  viz.  that  general 
Council  of  Carthage,  A.D.  419,  about  three  years  after 
that  Milevitan.  At  the  end  of  the  first  Session,  they 
reviewed  the  Canons  of  the  seventeen  lesser  Councils, 
which  Justellus  mentions ; — and  wherein,  no  doubt, 
that  point  had  been  often  determined ; — and  out  of 
them  all  composed  that  Codex  canonum  Ecclesice 
Africance,  with  that  clause  inserted ;  as  appears  both 
in  the  Greek  and  many  ancient  Latin  copies,  and 
was  so  received  and  pleaded  by  the  Council  of 
Rheims,  as  Hincmarus  proves  as  well  as  others1. 

Gratian  confesseth  it,  but  adds  this  antidote2, 
Nisi  forte  Romanam  Sedem  appellaverit,  i.e.  'none  shall 
appeal  to  Rome  (the  main  design  of  this  Council) 
except  they  do  appeal  to  Rome ;' — not  expounding 
the  Canon,  but  exposing  himself  and  that  excellent 
Council. 

But  T.  C.  urgeth3  the  Epistle  of  that  Council  to 
Boniface  (as  was  before  noted),  and  thence  proves 
that  the  Council  acknowledged,  that  Bishops  had 
power  in  their  own  cause  to  appeal  to  Rome. 

it  ig  true,  they  do  say4  that,  in  a  letter  written 
a  year  before  to  Zosimus,  they  had  granted  liberty  to 
Bishops  to  appeal  to  Rome.  This  is  true,  but  scarce 
honest, — the  next  words  in  the  letter  spoil  the  argu- 
ment and  the  sport  too :  for  they  further  say5,  that 

1  [These  particulars  are  abridged  from  Bp  Stillingfloet,  Vindi- 
cation, Vol.  n.  p.  188,  who  states  them  on  the  authority  of  Justel's 
Preface  to  the  Codex  Canonum  Eccl.  African.] 

2  [Apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  n.  1554,  A.] 

3  [Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  Vol.  n.  p.  190.] 

4  [Epist.  ad  Bonif.  apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  n.  1140,  c,  D.] 
*  [Ibid.  1141,  c.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  109 

because  the  Pope  contended  that  the  appeals  of 
Bishops  were  contained  in  the  Nicene  Canons,  they 
were  contented  to  yield  that  it  should  be  so,  till  the 
true  Canons  were  produced. 

Now  what  can  the  reader  desire  to  put  an  eternal 
end  to  this  controversy — and  consequently  to  the 
claim  of  the  Universal  Pastor  in  this  age — but  an 
account  of  the  judgment  of  this  Council,  when  they 
had  received  the  copy  of  the  Nicene  Canons  (on 
which  the  point  depended)  out  of  the  East. 

This  you  have  in  that  excellent  Epistle  of  theirs 
to  Pope  Ccelestine,  who  succeeded  Boniface ;  and  the 
elaborate  Dr  Stillingfleet l,  who  searcheth  all  things 
to  the  bottom,  hath  transcribed  it  at  large,  as  a  worthy 
monument  of  antiquity,  and  of  very  great  light  in 
the  present  controversy.  To  him  I  shall  refer  the 
reader  for  the  whole,  and  only  note  some  few  ex- 
pressions to  the  purpose. 

'  We '  (say  they)  '  earnestly  beseech  you  to  admit 
no  more  into  your  Communion  those  whom  we  have 
cast  out :  for  your  reverence  will  easily  perceive  that 
this  is  forbid  in  the  Council  of  Nice.  For  if  this  be 
taken  care  for,  as  to  the  inferior  Clergy  and  Laity, 
how  much  more  would  it  have  it  to  be  observed  in 
Bishops?... The  Decrees  of  Nice  have  subjected  both 
the  inferior  Clergy  and  Bishops  to  their  Metropolitans ; 
for  they  have  most  wisely  and  justly  provided,  that 
every  business  be  determined  in  the  place  where  it 
began... Especially  seeing  that  it  is  lawful  to  every 
one,  if  he  be  offended,  to  appeal  to  the  Council  of  the 

1  Rational  Account,  pp.  410,  411 ;  [Vol.  u.  pp.  191,  et  seqq. ; 
new  edit.] 


110  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP   VI. 

province,  or  even  to  an  universal  Council.... Or  how 
can  a  judgment  made  beyond  the  sea  be  valid,  to 
which  the  persons  of  necessary  witnesses  cannot  be 
brought,  by  reason  &c.  For  this  sending  of  men  to 
us  from  your  holiness,  we  do  not  find  it  commanded 
by  any  Synod  of  the  Fathers.  And  as  for  that  which 
you  did  long  since  send  to  us  by  Faustinus,  our  fellow 
Bishop,  as  belonging  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  we  could 
not  find  it  in  the  truest  copies,  sent  by  holy  Cyril  our 
colleague,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  by  the  venerable 
Atticus,  Bishop  of  Constantinople ;  which  also  we 
sent  to  your  predecessor  Boniface,  &c....Take  heed 
also  of  sending  to  us  any  of  your  clerks  for  ex- 
ecutors to  those  who  desire  it,  lest  we  seem  to  bring 
the  swelling  pride  of  the  world  into  the  Church  of 
Christ.... And  concerning  our  brother  Faustinus  (Api- 
arius  being  now  for  his  wickedness  cast  out  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,)  we  are  confident  that  our  brotherly 
love  continuing... Africa  shall  no  more  be  troubled 
with  him.' 

This  is  the  sum  of  that  famous  Epistle : — the  Pope 
and  the  African  Fathers  referred  the  point  in  dif- 
ference to  the  true  Canons  of  the  Nicene  Council, — 
the  Canons  determine  against  the  Pope,  and  from  the 
whole  story  it  is  inferred  evidently, — 

(1)  That  Pope  Boniface  himself  implieth  his  ju- 
risdiction was  limited  by  the  General  Council  of  Nice, 
and  that  all  the  Laity  and  Clergy  too  (except  Bishops) 
that  lived  beyond  the  seas,  and  consequently  in  Eng- 
land, were  exempted  from  his  jurisdiction    by  that 
Council. 

(2)  Pope  Boniface  even  then,  when  he  made  his 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  Ill 

claim  and  stood  upon  his  terms  with  the  African 
Fathers,  pleads  nothing  for  the  appeals  of  transmarine 
Bishops  to  Home,  but  the  allowance  of  the  Council  of 
Nice, — no  '  Tu  es  Petrus '  then  heard  of. 

(3)  Then  it  seems  the  practices  of  Popes  them- 
selves were  to  be  ruled  and  judged  by  the  ancient 
Canons  and  Laws  of  the  Church. 

(4)  The  African  Fathers  declared  the  Pope  fal- 
lible and  actually  mistaken,  both  as  to  his  own  power 
and  sense  of  the  Council ;  proving  substantially  that 
neither  authority  from  Councils,  nor  any  foundation 
in  justice,  equity  or  order  of  government,  or  public 
conveniency,   will    allow    or    suffer    such    appeals    to 
Rome ;  and  that  the  Pope  had  no  authority  to  send 
Legates  to  hear  causes  in  such  cases. 

All  these  things  lie  so  obviously  in  prejudice  both 
of  the  Pope's  possession  and  title,  as  Universal  Pastor 
at  that  time,  both  in  his  own  and  the  Church's  sense, 
that  to  apply  them  further  would  be  to  insult ;  which 
I  shall  forbear,  seeing  Baronius  is  so  ingenuous  as  to 
confess,  there  are  some  'hard  things'  in  this  Epistle, 
anfl  Perron  hath  hereupon  exposed  his  wit  with  so 
much  sweat  and  so  little  purpose,  but  his  own  cor- 
rection and  reproach, — as  Dr  Stillingfleet  notes1. 

Yet  we  may  modestly  conclude  from  this  one 
plain  instance,  that  the  sense  of  the  Nicene  Council 
was  defined  by  the  African  Council,  to  be  against  the 
Pope's  supremacy,  and  consequently  they  did  not 
submit  to  it  nor  believe  it ;  and  a  further  consequence 
to  our  purpose  is,  that  then  the  Catholic  Church  did 

1  [Vindication,  Vol.  n.  p.  198.] 


112  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

not  universally  own  it: — i.e.  the  Pope's  supremacy 
then  had  not  possession  of  the  faith  of  the  whole 
Church.  For  as  T.  C.  maintains1,  the  Africans,  not- 
withstanding the  contest  in  the  sixth  Council  of 
Carthage,  'were  always  in  true  Catholic  Communion 
with  the  Roman  Church,  even  during  the  term  of  this 
pretended  separation  :'  and  Coelestine  himself  saith, 
that  Saint  Augustine,  one  of  those  Fathers,  '  lived  and 
died  in  the  Communion  of  the  Roman  Church2.' 


SECTION  IX. 

THE    CONCLUSION    TOUCHING    POSSESSION 
ANCIENTLY. 

WE  hope  it  is  now  apparent  enough,  that  the 
Pope's  supremacy  had  no  possession  in  England 
from  the  beginning,  or  for  the  first  six  hundred  years, 
either  de  facto  or  in  fide.  Our  ancestors  yielded  not 
to  it ;  they  unanimously  resisted  it,  and  they  had  no 
reason  to  believe  it,  either  from  the  Councils  or 
practice  of  the  Church,  or  from  the  edicts  and  rules 
of  the  imperial  Law,  or  the  very  sayings  of  the  Popes 
themselves. 

Thus  Samson's  hair,  the  strength  and  pomp  of 
their  best  plea,  is  cut  off.  The  foundation  of  the 
Pope's  supremacy  is  subverted,  and  all  other  pleas 
broken  with  it. 

If,   according   to   the   Apostles'    Canons3,    '  every 

1  [Labyrinthus  Cantuar.]  p.  191.  [§  6.] 

2  [Labyr.  ubi  supra;  and  Bp  Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  p.  202.] 

3  [Can.  xxxin.  al.  xxxv ;  apud  Coteler.  Tom.  i.  p.  442.] 


CHAP.  VI.]  PRESCRIPTION.  113 

nation  had  its  proper  head  in  the  beginning,  to  be 
acknowledged  by  them  under  God ' ; — and  according 
to  a  General  Council1,  all  such  heads  should  hold  as 
from  the  beginning ; — there  can  be  no  ground  after- 
wards for  a  lawful  possession  to  the  contrary. 

If  (Tu  es  Petrus'  and  'Pasce  oves'  have  any  force 
to  maintain  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  why  did  not  the 
ancient  Fathers,  the  authors  of  those  Canons,  see  it  ? 
Why  was  not  it  shewn  by  the  Popes  concerned,  in 
bar  against  them,  when  nothing  else  could  be  pleaded  ? 
When  both  possession  and  tradition  were  to  be 
begun,  and  had  not  yet  laid  their  foundation  ?  Yea, 
when  actual  opposition  in  England  was  made  against 
it ;  when  General  Councils  abroad  laid  restraints  upon 
it ;  and  the  Eastern  Church  would  not  acknowledge 
it. 

Indeed,  both  antiquity,  universality,  and  tradition 
itself,  and  all  colour  of  right  for  ever,  fails  with  pos- 
session. 

For  possession  of  supremacy,  afterwards,  cannot 
possibly  have  either  a  Divine  or  just  title,  but  must 
lay  its  foundation  contrary  to  God's  institution  and 
ecclesiastical  Canon.  And  the  possessor  is  a  thief 
and  a  robber,  our  adversaries  being  judges.  He  in- 
vades others'  provinces,  and  is  bound  to  restore :  and 
long  possession  is  but  a  protracted  rebellion  against 
God  and  his  Church2. 

However  it  be  with  the  secular  powers,  Christ's 
Vicar  must  certainly  derive  from  him,  must  hold  the 

1  [Concil.  Nicaen.  can.  vi ;  apud  Labb.  Tom.  n.  32,  c.] 

2  [See  some  interesting  remarks  on  this  subject  in  Mr  Palmer's 
'Jurisdiction  of  the  British  Episcopacy,'  pp.  132 — 138.] 

8 


114  PRESCRIPTION.  [CHAP.  VI. 

power  he  gave,  must  come  in  it  at  his  door.  And  S.  W. 
himself1  against  Dr  Hammond  fiercely  amrmeth,  that 
'  possession  in  this  kind  ought  to  begin  near  Christ's 
time ;  and  he  that  hath  begun  it  later,  unless  he  can 
evidence  that  he  was  driven  out  from  an  ancient 
possession,  is  not  to  be  styled  a  possessor,  but  an 
usurper,  an  intruder,  an  invader,  disobedient,  rebel- 
lious, and  schismatical.'  Good  night,  S.  W. 

Quod  db  initio  fuit  invalidum,  tractu  temporis  non 
convalescit, — is  a  rule  in  the  civil  Law. 

Yea,  whatever  possession  the  Pope  got  afterwards 
was  not  only  an  illegal  usurpation,  but  a  manifest 
violation  of  the  Canon  of  Ephesus2,  and  thereby  con- 
demned as  schismatical. 

1  [Schism  Disarmed,]  p.  50. 

2  [Apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  m.  802.] 


CHAPTER   VII. 

THE    POPE    HAD    NOT    FULL    POSSESSION    HERE, 
BEFORE  HENRY  VIII.— I.    NOT  IN  AUGUS- 
TINE'S TIME.— II.    NOR  AFTER. 


IT  is  boldly  pleaded,  that  the  Pope  had  possession 
of  the  supremacy  in   England  for  nine  hundred 
years  together,  from  Augustine  till  Henry  VIII :  and 
no  king  on  earth  hath  so  long,  and  so  clear  prescrip- 
tion for  his  crown. 

To  which  we  answer,  (1)  That  he  had  not  such 
possession.  (2)  If  he  had,  it  is  no  argument  of  a 
just  title. 


SECTION  I. 

NOT   IN   AUSTIN'S   TIME— STATE   OF  SUPREMACY 
QUESTIONED. 

WE    shall    consider    the  Pope's   supremacy   here, 
as  it  stood  in  and  near  Saint  Augustine's  time, 
and  in  the  ages  after  him,  to  Henry  VIII. 

I.  We  have  not  found  hitherto,  that  in  or  about 
the  time  of  Augustine,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
the  Pope  had  any  such  power  in  England  as  is  pre- 
tended. 

Indeed,  he  came  from  Rome,  but  he  brought  no 
mandate  with  him ;  and  when  he  was  come,  he  did 
nothing  without  the  King's  licence.  At  his  arrival, 
he  petitions  the  King ;  the  King  commands  him  to 
stay  in  the  Isle  of  Thanet,  till  his  further  pleasure 

8—2 


116  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  VII. 

was  known  : — he  obeyed  ;  afterward  the  King  gave 
him  licence  to  preach  to  his  subjects,  and  when  he 
was  himself  converted,  majorem  prcedicandi  licentiam, 
he  enlarged  his  licence  so  to  do1. 

It  is  true  Saint  Gregory2  presumed  largely,  to 
subject  all  the  Priests  of  Britain  under  Augustine,  and 
to  give  him  power  to  erect  two  Archbishoprics,  and 
twelve  Bishoprics  under  each  of  them ;  but  it  is  one 
thing  to  claim,  another  thing  to  possess  ;  for  ^Ethel- 
bert  was  then  the  only  Christian  King,  who  had  not 
the  twentieth  part  of  Britain ; — and  it  appears  that 
after  both  Saint  Gregory  and  Austin  were  dead,  there 
were  but  one  Archbishop  and  two  Bishops  throughout 
the  British  Islands,  of  the  Roman  Communion. 

Indeed,  the  British  and  Scotch  Bishops  were  many, 
but  they  renounced  all  communion  with  Rome3,  as 
appeared  before. 

We  thankfully  acknowledge  the  Pope's  sending 
over  preachers ;  his  commending  sometimes  Arch- 
bishops, when  desired,  to  us ;  his  directions  to  fill 
up  vacant  sees : — all  which  and  such-like  were  acts 
of  charity,  becoming  so  eminent  a  Prelate  in  the 
Catholic  Church ;  but  sure  these  were  not  marks  of 
supremacy. 

It  is   possible,    Saint  Melit   (as  is4   urged)  might 

1  Bed.  Hist.  Eccl  Lib.  i.  c.  25,  26.    [Augustine  was  consecrated 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Aries  (c.  27.)  and  placed  in  Canterbury  by 
the  King;  Lib.  I.  c.  25.  Lib.  n.  c.  1.    Cf.  Archbp  BramhalPs  'Just 
Vindication,'  Part  i.  chap,  iv ;  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  132.] 

2  [Apud  Spelman,  Concil.  Tom.  i.  p.  90.] 

3  Bed.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  n.  c.  2,  c.  4. 

4  [R.  C.   (i.  e.   Richard   Chalcedon)'s    '  Survey '  of  Bramhall's 
Vindication,  chap.  iv.  §  i.] 


CHAP.  VII.]  POSSESSION.  117 

bring  the  Decrees  of  the  Roman  Synod  hither  to  be 
observed,  and  that  they  were  worthy  of  our  accept- 
ance, and  were  accepted  accordingly;  but  it  is  cer- 
tain, and  will  afterwards  appear  to  be  so,  that  such 
Decrees  were  never  of  force  here,  further  than  they 
were  allowed  by  the  King  and  kingdom. 

It  is  not  denied,  but  that  sometimes  we  admitted 
the  Pope's  Legates  and  Bulls  too ;  yet  the  legatine 
Courts  were  not  anciently  heard  of,  neither  were  the 
Legates  themselves,  or  those  Bulls  of  any  authority 
without  the  King's  consent1. 

Some  would  argue  from  the  great  and  flattering 
titles  that  were  anciently  given  to  the  Pope ;  but  sure 
such  titles  can  never  signify  possession  or  power, — 
which  at  the  same  time,  and  perhaps  by  the  very 
same  persons  that  gave  the  titles,  was  really  and 
indeed  denied  him. 

But  the  great  service  the  Bishop  of  Chalcedon 
hath  done  his  cause,  by  these  little  instances  before 
mentioned,  will  best  appear2  by  a  true  state  of  the 
question  touching  the  supremacy  betwixt  the  Pope 
and  the  King  of  England ;  in  which  such  things  are 
not  all  concerned. 

The  plain  question  is,  Who  was  then  the  political 
head  of  the  Church  of  England,  the  King  or  the 
Pope  ?  Or  more  immediately,  whether  the  Pope  then 
had  possession  of  the  supremacy  here  in  such  things, 
as  was  denied  him  by  Henry  VIII.  at  the  beginning  of 

1  [These  points  are  proved  below,  chap.  ix.  sect.  n;  chap,  x.] 

2  Vid.  Bramhall,  [Replication  to  the  Bp  of  Chalcedon,  Part  i. 
chap,  iv;  Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  137,  et  seqq.] 


118  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  VII. 

our  Reformation,  and  the  Pope  still  challengeth  ? 
And  they  are  such  as  these  : 

(1)  A  legislative  power  in  ecclesiastical  causes. 

(2)  A  dispensative  power,   above  and  against  the 
Laws  of  the  Church. 

(3)  A  liberty  to  send  Legates,  and  to  hold  lega- 
tine  Courts  in  England  without  licence. 

(4)  The  right  of  receiving  the  last  appeals  of  the 
King's  subjects. 

(5)  The  patronage    of  the  English  Church,  and 
investitures  of  Bishops ; — with  power  to  impose  oaths 
upon  them,  contrary  to  their  oath  of  Allegiance. 

(6)  The  first-fruits  and    tenths  of  ecclesiastical 
livings,    and    a   power    to    impose    upon   them  what 
pensions,  or  other  burthens,  he  pleaseth. 

(7)  The  goods  of  Clergymen  dying  intestate. 
These  are  the   flowers  of  that  supremacy   which 

the  Pope  claimeth  in  England,  and  our  Kings,  and 
Laws,  and  customs  deny  him  (as  will  appear  afterwards 
in  due  place):  for  this  place,  it  is  enough  to  observe, 
that  we  find  no  footsteps  of  such  possession  of  the 
Pope's  power  in  England,  in  or  about  Augustine's 
time. 

As  for  that  one  instance  of  Saint  Wilfrid's  appeal, 
it  hath  appeared  before1,  that  it  being  rejected  by  two 
Kings  successively,  by  the  other  Archbishop,  and  by 
the  whole  body  of  the  English  Clergy,  sure  it  is  no 
full  instance  of  the  Pope's  possession  of  the  supremacy 
here  at  that  time ; — and  needs  no  further  answer. 

1  [See  above,  pp.  56,  57.] 


CHAP.  VII.]  POSSESSION.  119 

SECTION   II. 

NO  CLEAR  OR  FULL  POSSESSION  IN  THE  AGES  AFTER 
AUSTIN  TILL   HENRY  VIII.— EIGHT  DISTINC- 
TIONS—THE  QUESTION   STATED. 

IT  may  be  thought  that  though  the  things  mentioned 
were  not  in  the  Pope's  possession  so  early,  yet  for 
many  ages  together  they  were  found  in  his  possession, 
and  so  continued  without  interruption,  till  Henry  VIII. 
ejected  the  Pope,  and  possessed  himself  and  his  suc- 
cessors of  them. 

Whether  it  were  so  or  not,  we  are  now  to  examine ; 
and  lest  we  should  be  deceived  with  colours  and  gene- 
ralities, we  must  distinguish  carefully, — 

(1)  Betwixt  a  primacy  of  order  and  dignity  and 
unity,  and  supremacy  of  power, — the   only  thing  dis- 
puted. 

(2)  Betwixt  a  judgment  of  direction   resulting 
from  the  said  primacy,  and  a  judgment  of  jurisdiction 
depending  upon  supremacy. 

(3)  Betwixt  things  claimed,  and  things  granted 
and  possessed. 

(4)  Betwixt  things  possessed  continually,  or  for 
some  time  only. 

(5)  Betwixt  possession  partial  and  of  some  lesser 
branches,  and  plenary  or  of  the  main  body  of  juris- 
diction. 

(6)  Betwixt  things   permitted  of  courtesy,   and 
things  granted  out  of  duty. 

(7)  Betwixt  incroachment  through  craft,  or  power 
or  interest,  or  the  temporary  oscitancy  of  the  people ; 
and  power  grounded  in  the  Laws,   enjoyed  with  the 


120  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  VII. 

consent  of  the  states  of  the  kingdom  in  times  of 
peace. 

(8)  Lastly,  betwixt  quiet  possession,  and  inter- 
rupted. 

These  distinctions  may  receive  a  flout  from  some 
capricious  adversary ;  but,  I  find,  there  is  need  of 
them  all,  if  we  deal  with  a  subtle  one. 

For  the  question  is  not,  touching  primacy  in  the 
Bishop  of  Eome,  or  an  acknowledged  judgment  of  di- 
rection flowing  from  it, — or  a  claim  of  jurisdiction, 
which  is  no  possession, — or  a  partial  possession  of 
power  in  some  lesser  things, — or  a  larger  power  in 
greater  matters,  yielded  out  of  courtesy,  oscitancy, 
or  fear,  or  surprise,  and  held  only  for  a  time,  while 
things  were  unsettled,  or  by  power,  craft,  or  in- 
terest, but  soon  after  disclaimed,  and  frequently 
interrupted:  for  this  is  not  such  a  possession  as  our 
adversaries  plead  for, — or,  indeed,  will  stand  them 
in  stead. 

But  the  question  in  short  is  this :  Whether  the 
Pope  had  a  quiet  and  uninterrupted  possession  of  the 
supreme  power  over  the  Church  of  England  in  those 
great  branches  of  supremacy  denied  him  by  Henry  the 
Eighth,  for  nine  hundred  years  together,  or  for  many 
ages  together  before  that  time? 

This  strictly  must  be  the  question  :  for  the  com- 
plaint is,  that  Henry  VIII.  dispossessed  the  Pope  of 
the  supremacy  which  he  had  enjoyed  for  so  many 
ages,  and  made  himself  head  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land; therefore  those  very  things  which  that  King 
then  denied  to  the  Pope,  or  took  from  him,  must  be 
those  flowers  of  the  supremacy,  which  the  Papists 


CHAP.  VII.]  POSSESSION.  121 

pretend  the  Pope  had  possession  of,  for  so  many  ages 
together  before  his  time. 

Two  things,  therefore,  and  those  only,  are  needful 
to  be  sought  here :  What  those  branches  of  power 
are,  which  Henry  the  Eighth  denied  to  the  Pope,  and 
resumed  to  himself  and  his  successors  ?  And  whether 
the  Pope  had  quietly,  and  without  plain  interruption, 
possessed  the  same  for  so  many  ages  before  his  time? 
And  in  order  thereunto,  when  and  how  he  got  it? 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

WHAT  THE    SUPREMACY  WAS,   WHICH  HENRY 

THE  EIGHTH   TOOK  FROM   THE  POPE:— THE 

PARTICULARS  OF  IT,  WITH   NOTES. 


IT  is  true,  Henry  VIII.  resumed  the  title  of  the 
only  Supreme  Head  in  earth  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  denied  this  title  to  the  Pope  ;  but  it  is 
plain,  the  controversy  was  not  so  much  about  the 
title  as  the  power, — '  the  honours,  dignities,  jurisdic- 
tions, authorities,  profits,  &c.  belonging  or  appertain- 
ing to  the  said  dignity  of  Supreme  Head  of  the 
Church  of  England' ;  as  is  evident  by  the  statute1. 

The    particulars    of    that    power    were    such    as 
these : — 

I.  Henry   VIII.  prohibited    all    appeals   to    the 
Pope  and  Legates  from  Rome2. 

II.  He  also  forbad  all  payments  of  money  upon 
any  pretence  to  the  Pope3. 

III.  He  denied  the  Pope   the  nomination  and 
consecration  of  Archbishops  and  Bishops,  and  presen- 
tations4. 

IV.  He  prohibited  all  suits  for  Bulls,  &c.  to  be 
made  to  the  Pope,  or  the  see  of  Rome5. 

V.  He  prohibited   any  Canons  to  be  executed 
here  without  the  King's  licence6. 

i  26»  Hen.  VIII.  c.  1.  2  24°  Hon.  VIII.  c.  12. 

3  [23°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  20;  25«  Hon.  VIII.  c.  20.] 
i  250  Hen.  VIII.  c.  20.  5   25°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  21. 

e  250  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19. 


CHAP.  Vm.J  POSSESSION.  123 

I  have  perused  the  statutes  of  King  Henry  VIII., 
and  I  cannot  find  any  thing  which  he  took  away  from 
the  Pope,  but  it  is  reducible  to  these  five  heads ; 
touching  which,  by  the  way,  we  note  : — 

(1)  The  controversy  was  not  about  a  primacy  of 
order,  or  the  beginning  of  unity,  but  a  supremacy  of 
power. 

(2)  All  these  things  were  then  denied  him,  not 
by  the  King  alone,  but  by  all  the  states  of  the  king- 
dom, in  many  statutes. 

(3)  The   denial  of  all   these  branches  of  supre- 
macy to  the  Pope  were  grounded  upon  the  ancient 
laws  and  customs  of  the  realm,  as  is  usually  noted  in 
the  preamble  of  the  said  statutes  :  and  if  that  one 
thing  shall  be  made  to   appear,   we  must  conclude, 
that  the  Pope  might  be  guilty  of  an  usurpation,  but 
could  never  have  a  legal  possession  of  that  supre- 
macy, that  is  in  the  question. 

(4)  Note,  that  the  states  of  the  kingdom  in  the 
reign  of  Queen   Mary,   when  by  means   of  Cardinal 
Pool  they  recognised  the  Pope's  supremacy,  it  was 
with  this  careful  and  express  limitation1,  'that  nothing 
therein  should  be   understood   to  diminish   any  the 
liberties  of  the  imperial  crown  of  this  realm,  which 
did  belong   unto  it  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Henry 
VIII.' — without   diminution   or    enlargement   of  the 
Pope's    supremacy    in    England,     as    it    was    in    the 
twentieth  year  of  Henry  VIII.     So  that  Queen  Mary 
and  her  parliament  added  nothing  to  the  Pope,  but 
only  restored   what  he  had   before ;  and  when  and 
how  that  was  obtained  is  next  to  be  examined. 

1  1°  and  2"  Phil,  and  Mary,  c.  8,  [sect.  24.] 


CHAPTER   IX. 

WHETHER  THE  POPE'S  SUPREMACY   HERE  WAS 

IN   QUIET  POSSESSION  TILL   HENRY 

THE  EIGHTH. 


WE  have  found  what  branches  of  the  Pope's  power 
were  cut  off  by  Henry  VIII. — 
The  question  is,  Whether  the  Pope  had  possession 
of  them,  without  interruption,  before  that  time  ?  And 
that  we  may  proceed  distinctly  and  clearly,  we  shall 
consider  each  of  the  former  branches  by  themselves ; 
and  first  we  begin  with  the  Pope's  power  of  receiving- 
Appeals  from  hence,  which  carries  a  very  considerable 
part  of  his  pretended  jurisdiction. 


SECTION    I. 

OF   APPEALS  TO  ROME— THREE   NOTIONS  OF  APPEAL 

—APPEALS  TO  ROME  LOCALLY,  OR  BY  LEGATES 

—WILFRID— AN  SELM. 

A  PPEALS  to  Rome  we  have  found  among  these 
XA.  things  which  were  prohibited  by  Henry  VIII : 
therefore  no  doubt  the  Pope  claimed,  and  in  some 
sort  possessed,  the  power  of  receiving  such  Appeals 
before.  But  what  kind  of  possession,  how  free,  and 
how  long,  is  worthy  to  be  inquired. 

'  Appeal'  is  a  word  taken  several  ways  :  sometimes 
it  is  only  to  accuse  ;  (so  we  find  it  in  the  Statutes l 

1  [See  the  '  Rolls'  of  Parliament,  sub  ann.] 


CHAP.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  125 

11°  and  21°  Richard  II.)  Sometimes  to  refer  our- 
selves for  judgment  to  some  worthy  person ;  (so  Franc- 
fort  appealed  to  John  Calvin1.)  But  now  it  is  chiefly 
used  for  a  removing  a  cause  from  an  inferior  to  a 
superior  court,  that  hath  power  of  disanulling  what 
the  other  did. 

In  this  last  sense,  historians2  tell  us  that  Appeals 
to  Rome  were  not  in  use  with  us,  till  about  five  hun- 
dred years  agon,  or  a  little  more,  viz.  the  year  1140. 

These  Appeals  to  Rome  were  received  and  judged 
either  in  the  Pope's  court  at  Rome,  or  by  his  Legates 
in  England.  A  word  or  two  of  each. 

For  Appeals  to  the  Pope  at  Rome,  the  two  famous  I.  Locally. 
instances  of  Wilfrid  and  Anselm  take  up  much  of  our 
history. 

But  they  both   seem,   at  least  at  first,  to  have  Wilfrid, 
appealed   to  the  Pope,  under  the  second  notion  of 
appeal ;  not  to  him  as  a  proper  or  legal  judge,  but 
as  a  great  and  venerable  Prelate. 

But  not  to  stick  there,  it  is  well  known  what 
effect  they  obtained.  As  for  Wilfrid,  his  account 
was  of  elder  date,  and  hath  appeared  before3,  to  the 
great  prejudice  of  the  Pope^s  possession  in  England 
at  that  time. 

But  Anselm  is  the  great  monument  of  papal  obe- 
dience,  and  (as  a  learned  man4  observes)  the  first  pro- 
moter of  papal  authority  in  England.  He  began  his 
enterprise  with  a  pretence,  that  he  ought  not  to  be 

1  [Troubles  at  Frankford,  p.  36;  od.  1575.] 

2  [See  Twysden's  Historical  Vindication,  p.  35.] 

3  [See  above,  pp.  56,  57.] 

4  [Twysden,  Hist.  Vind.  pp.  14,  41.     It  is  important  to  bear  in 
mind  that  Anselm  was  an  Italian.] 


126  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

barred  of  visiting  the  Vicar  of  St  Peter  causa  regi- 
minis  ecclesice,  but  he  was  not  suffered  to  do  that'. 
So  far  was  the  Pope  then,  from  having  the  power  of 
receiving  Appeals,  that  he  might  not  receive  the  visit 
of  a  person  of  Anselm's  quality,  without  the  King's 
leave. 

First,  he  was  told  '  by  the  Bishops,  as  well  as  lay- 
lords,  that  it  was  a  thing  unheard  of,  and  altogether 
against  the  use  of  the  realm,  for  any  of  the  great 
men,  especially  himself,  to  presume  any  such  thing, 
without  the  King's  licence2.' 

Notwithstanding,  he  would  and  did  go ;  but  what 
followed?  His  bishopric  was  seized  into  the  King's 
hand,  and  the  Pope  durst  not,  or  thought  not  good, 
to  give  him  either  consilium  or  auxilium,  as  Sir  Roger 
Twysden  makes  appear3  out  of  Eadmer. 

In  the  dispute,  the  king  told  Anselm  the  Pope 
had  not  to  do  with  his  rights,  and  wrote  that  free 
letter  we  find  in  Jorvalensis4;  and  upon  the  ambi- 
guous answer  of  the  Pope,  the  King  sent  Anselm  him- 
self to  Rome,  [and  with  him  another  person,]  who 
spake  plainly,  his  master  for  the  loss  of  his  kingdom, 
would  not  lose  the  investiture  of  his  churches5. 

1  [See  the  circumstances  more  fully  narrated  in  Twysden,  pp. 
15 — 17.     On  one  occasion,  when  the  Pope's  condemnation  of  regal 
investitures  was  made  known  in  England,  Anselm  had  occasion  to 
complain  as  follows :   "  Quod  audientes  rex  et  principes  ejus,  ipsi 
etiam  episcopi  et  alii  minoris  ordinis  tarn  graviter  acceperunt,  ut 
assererent  se  nullo  modo  huic  rei  assensum  prsehituros,  et  me  de 
regno  potius  quam  hoc  servarent  expulsuros,  et  a  Romana  ecclesia 
se  discessuros."    p.  16.] 

2  [Eadmer,  Hist.  Nov.  p.  39,  1.  30.] 

3  pp.  11,  12  ;  [p.  15,  new  edit.] 

4  col.  999, 1.  37,  etc.     [apud  Scriptores  x.  ed.  Lond.  1652.] 

5  Eadmer,  p.  73,  1.  13. 


CHAP.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  127 

But  '  Anselm,  as  Archbishop,  took  the  oath  that  Objection, 
was   appointed    by   the    Pope    to    be    taken    at    the 
receiving  of  the  pall, — which  allowed  his  power   to 
receive  Appeals.' 

It  is  true  ;  but  Paschalis  himself1,  who  devised  that  Answer, 
oath,  acknowledgeth  that  it  was  (as  Anselm  signified 
to  him)  not  admitted,  but  wondered  at ;  and  looked 
on  as  a  strange  innovation  both  by  the  King  and  the 
great  men  of  the  kingdom.  The  King  pleaded  the 
fundamental  laws  and  customs  of  the  land  against  it : 
"  It  is  a  custom  of  my  kingdom,  instituted  by  my 
father,  that  no  Pope  may  be  appealed  unto,  without 
the  King's  licence.  He  that  takes  away  the  customs 
of  the  kingdom  doth  violate  the  power  and  crown  of 
the  King2."  And  it  is  well  noted  by  Archbishop 
Bramhall3,  that  '  the  laws  established  by  his  father 
(viz.  William  the  Conqueror)  were  no  other  than  the 
laws  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  that  is  to  say,  the  old 
Saxon  laws,' — who4  had  before  yielded  to  the  request 
of  his  barons  (as  Hoveden5  notes)  to  confirm  those 
laws. 

But  though  Anselm  had  obliged  himself  by  the 
said  oath  to  the  Pope,  yet  the  rest  of  the  Bishops 
refused  the  yoke ;  and  thereupon  Malmsbury  tells 
us6,  that  '  in  the  execution  of  these  things,  all  the 

1  Baron.  Annal.  Tom.  xi.  ad  an.  1102,  vm. 

2  Malmesbur.  de  Gestis  Pont.  Anglorum,  Lib.  i.  [p.  219 ;  ed. 
Francof.  1601.] 

3  [Just  Vindication,  Part  I.  Disc,  ii ;  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  136.] 
*  [i.e.  William  the  Conqueror.] 

5  [R.  de  Hoveden,  Annal.  inter  Rerum  Angl.  Scriptores,  p.  608; 
ed.  Franc.  1601.] 

6  [Ubi  supra,  p.  219.] 


128  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

Bishops  of  England  did  deny  their  suffrage  to  their 
Primate.' 

Consequently,  the  unanimity  of  the  whole  realm 
appeared  in  the  same  point,  in  the  reign  of  this  King's 
grandchild,  in  the  statute  of  Clarendon ;  confirming 
the  former  British-English  custom,  not  only  by  their 
consents  but  their  oaths1 : — wherein  generally  every 
man  is  interdicted  to  appeal  to  Rome. 

This  statute  of  Clarendon  was  made,  when  popery 
seemed  to  be  at  the  height  in  England.  It  was  made 
to  confirm  the  customs  and  liberties  of  Henry  the 
Second's  predecessors,  that  is  to  say  (as  the  words  of 
the  statute  are)  his  grandfather  Henry  the  First,  son 
of  the  Conqueror,  and  other  kings.  Now  the  customs 
of  England  are  our  common  Laws,  and  the  customs  of 
his  predecessors  were  the  Saxon,  Danish,  and  Nor- 
man Laws ;  and  therefore  ought  to  be  observed  of  all, 
as  my  Lord  Bramhall  reasons2. 

What  these  customs  were,  I  may  shew  more 
largely  hereafter ;  at  present  this  one  is  pertinent. 
"  All  Appeals  in  England  must  proceed  regularly 
from  the  Archdeacon  to  the  Bishop,  from  the  Bishop 
to  the  Archbishop,  and  if  the  Archbishop  fail  to  do 
his  duty,  the  last  complaint  must  be  to  the  King,  to 
give  order  for  redress3,"  that  is,  by  fit  delegates. 

In  Edward  the  Third's  time,  we  have  a  plain  law 
to  the  same  purpose  in  these  words4 :  '  Whosoever 

1  Mat.  Paris,  Hist.  Major.  A.D.  1164,  [p.  100]:  R.  de  Hoveden, 
Annal.  [p.  496.] 

2  [Just  Vindication,  Vol.  i.  pp.   135 — 137:    Schism  Guarded, 
Vol.  n.  p.  439.] 

3  [Mat.  Paris,  A.D.  1164;  pp.  100,  101 ;  ed.  1639.] 

4  27°  Edw.  III.  c.  1. 


CHAI-.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  129 

should  draw  any  of  the  King's  subjects  out  of  the 
realm,  in  plea  about  any  cause,  whereof  the  cogni- 
zance belongeth  to  the  King's  court ;  or  should  sue  in 
any  foreign  court  to  defeat  any  judgment  given  in 
the  King's  court,'  (viz.  by  appealing  to  Rome)  '  they 
should  incur  the  same  penalties.'  And  upon  the  same 
ground,  the  body  of  the  kingdom  would  not  suffer 
Edward  the  First  to  be  cited  before  the  Pope1. 

It  is  confessed,  that  in  the  Laws  of  Henry  I.  it  is  Objection, 
granted,  that  in  case  a  Bishop  erring  in  faith,  and 
on  admonition  appearing  incorrigible,  ad  summos  Pon- 
tifices  (the  Archbishops)  vel  sedem  apostolicam  accu- 
setur: — which  passage,  as  Sir  Roger  Twysden2  guesses, 
was  inserted  afterwards,  or  the  grant  gotten  by  the 
importunity  of  the  then  Pope. 

But  the  same  learned  man's  note  upon  it  is,  that  Answer. 
"  this  is  the   only  cause  wherein  I  find  any  English 
law  did  ever  approve  a  foreign  judicature3." 

It  is  plain,  Anselm's  Appeal  (now  on  foot)  was 
disapproved  by  the  whole  kingdom4 ;  it  is  evident, 
that  this  clause  was  directly  repugnant  to  the  liberties 
and  customs  of  the  realm,  upon  which  AnselnVs 
Appeal  was  so  ill  resented. 

It  is  manifest  in  those  days  and  after,  Appeals  to 
Rome  were  not  common,  (yea,  this  very  Pope  Pas- 
chalis5  complains  to  this  King,  Vos  oppressis  apostolicce 
sedis  appellationem  subtrahitis, — which  was  A.  D.  1115,) 

1  [A.  D.  1301.     The  letter  may  be  seen  in  Fox,  Acts  and  Monu- 
ments, Vol.  I.  pp.  388,  389,  ed.  1684.] 

2  [Vindication,  p.  41.]  3  [Ibid.] 

4  [See  above,  p.  126.] 

5  Eadmer,  [p.  115,  1.  31.] 

9 


130  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

and  that  they  were  held  a  cruel  intrusion1  on  the 
Church's  liberty ;  so  as  at  the  assize  at  Clarendon, 
1164,  this  law,  if  it  were  so,  was  annulled  and  declared 
to  be  contrary  to  the  liberties  and  customs  of  the 
realm ;  the  eighth  chapter  whereof  is  wholly  spent  in 
shewing  the  right  of  the  kingdom  in  this  point,  quod 
non  appellaretur  pro  causa  aliqua  ad  sedem  apostolicam, 
'  without  leave  had  first,  from  the  King  and  his  offi- 
cials,' as  John  of  Salisbury  interprets2. 

Indeed  the  King  did  personally  yield  afterwards, 
A.  D.  1172,  not  to  hinder  such  Appeals  in  ecclesiastical 
causes. 

But  the  whole  kingdom,  four  years  after,  would 
not  quit  their  interest ;  but  did  again  renew  the 
assize  of  Clarendon,  1176,  using  this  close  expres- 
sion3: Justitice  faciant  qucerere  per  consuetudinem  terrce 
illos,  qui  a  regno  recesserunt ;  et  nisi  redire  voluerint 
[infra  terminum  nominatum]  et  stare  [ad  rectum]  in 
curia  domini  regis,  postea  uthlagentur,  etc. — as  Gervase 
also  notes4. 

Accordingly  this  was  the  practice,  during  King 
Richard  the  First's  time.  Geoffrey,  Archbishop  of 
York,  was  complained  of,  that  he  did  not  only  refuse 
Appeals  to  Rome,  but  imprisoned  those  that  made 
them :  and  though  upon  that  complaint,  a  time  was 
assigned  to  make  his  defence  to  the  Pope,  yet  he 

1  [Henr.   Huntindon.    Hist.  Lib.  vni.  p.   395,   1.   15,   etc.    od. 
Francof.  1601.] , 

2  [Johan.  Saresber.  Epist.  clix.  p.  254 ;  ed.  Paris,  1611.] 

3  [This  took  place  in  a  parliament  at  Northampton.     Vid.  K. 
de  Hoveden,  Annal.  p.  502,  1.  29.] 

4  [Gervas.   Dorobern.  Chronica,  col.   1433,  1.  19 ;  inter  Scrip- 
tores  x.] 


OIAI-.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  131 

refused  to  go,  because  of  the  King's  prohibition  and 
the  indisposition  of  the  air1. 

After  this,  upon  a  difference  with  the  King,  the 
Archbishop  went  to  Rome,  and  made  his  peace  with 
the  Pope,  and  returns ;  but  the  King  offended  with 
it  committed2  the  care  even  of  the  spirituals  of  his 
Archbishopric  to  others,  till  he  had  reconciled  him- 
self to  the  crown3,  which  was  near  two  years  after, 
about  1198. 

After  this  again  he  received  complaint  from  Inno- 
centius  III.  '  non  excusare  te  potes,'  &c.  "  Thou  canst 
not  excuse  thyself  as  thou  oughtest,  that  thou  art 
ignorant  of  the  privilege  of  Appeals  to  us  ;  seeing  thou 
thyself  hast  sometimes  done  the  same4." 

And  near  about  the  same  time  (as  Twysden  ob- 
serves), '  Robert,  Abbot  of  Thorney,  deposed  by  Hu- 
bert, the  Archbishop,  was  kept  in  prison  a  year  and 
a  half,  without  any  regard  had  to  his  appeal  made  to 
the  Pope5.' 

Indeed,  that  Pope  Innocent  III.  and  his  clergy, 
great  instruments  in  obtaining  Magna  Charta  from 
that  Prince,  had  got  that  clause6  inserted,  Liceat  uni- 
cuique,  '  it  is  lawful  for  any  one  to  go  out  of  our 
kingdom,  and  to  return,  nisi  in  tempore  guerrce,  per 
aliquod  breve  tempus.'  "After  which,"  saith7  Twysden, 

*  [R.  de  Hoveden,  A.D.  1195,  p.  751, 1.  10.] 

2  [R.  de  Hoveden,  Annal.  p.  766, 1.  22,  etc.] 

3  [Ibid.  p.  778,  1.  25.] 

4  [A.D.  1201,  p.  817,  1.  53,  etc.] 

5  [Ibid.  A.D.  1195,  p.  757, 1.  17.     Other  instances  of  the  same 
kind  are  adduced  by  Twysden,  p.  48.] 

«  [Apud  Mat.  Paris,  Hist.  Major,  p.  258, 1.  53,  etc.] 
1  [Ibid.] 

9—2 


132  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

it  is  scarce  imaginable  how  many  petty  causes 
were  by  Appeals  removed  to  Rome ;  " — which  did 
not  only  cause  jealousy  at  Rome,  that  the  grievance 
would  not  long  be  borne,  and  put  the  Pope  in  pru- 
dence to  study  and  effect  a  mitigation,  by  some 
favourable  privileges  granted  to  the  Archbishop- 
ric ;  but  it  did  also  awaken  the  King  and  kingdom 
to  stand  upon,  and  recover  their  ancient  liberty  in 
that  point1. 

Hereupon,  the  body  of  the  kingdom,  in  their  que- 
rulous letter  to  Innocent  IV.  1245,  or  rather  to  the 
Council  at  Lyons,  claim 2  '  that  no  Legate  ought  to 
come  here,  but  on  the  King's  desire,  et  ne  quis  extra 
regnum  trahatar  in  causam,' — which3  Matthew  Paris 
left  out ;  but  is  found  in  Mr  Roper's  MS.  and  Mr 
Dugdale's  (as  Sir  Roger  Twysden4  observes) ;  agreea- 
ble to  one  of  the  Gravamina  Anglice,  sent  to  the  same 
Pope,  1246,  viz.  quod  Anglici  extra  regnum  in  causis 
apostolica  auctoritate  trahuntur5. 

Therefore,  it  is  most  remarkable,  that  at  the  re- 
vising of  Magna  Charta  by  Edward  I.,  the  former 
clause,  Liceat  unicuique,  &c.  was  left  out.  Since  which 
time,  none  of  the  clergy  might  go  beyond  seas  but 
with  the  King's  leave ;  as  the  writs6  in  the  Register, 
and  the  Acts  of  Parliament7  assure  us ;  and  (which  is 

1  [Cf.  Twysden's  Vindication,  pp.  49,  et  seqq.] 

2  Apud  Mat.  Paris,  p.  668, 1.  3. 

3  [viz.  the  clause  '  ne  quis,'  etc.] 

4  [Vindication,  p.  51,  and  note  8.] 
6  [Apud  Mat.  Paris,  p.  699,  1.  10.] 

6  [Registrum  Brevium,  fol.  193,  b ;  ed.  Lond.  1687.] 
17  [Parliament  at  Cambridge,  12°  Ric.  II.,  apud  Hen.  tie  Knygh- 
ton,  col.  2734, 1.  39,  etc. :  Stat.  5°  Ric.  II.  i.  c.  2.] 


CHAP.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  133 

more)  if  any  were  in  the   court  of  Rome,  the  King 
called  them  home1. 

The  rich  Cardinal  Bishop  of  Winchester2  knew 
the  law  in  this  case,  and  that  no  man  was  so  great, 
but  he  might  need  pardon  for  the  offence :  and  there- 
fore, about  1429.  caused  a  petition  to  be  exhibited  in 
Parliament3,  'that  neither  himself,  nor  any  other,  should 
be  troubled  by  the  King,  &c.  for  cause  of  any  provi- 
sion or  offence  done  by  the  said  Cardinal  against  any 
statute  of  Provisors ',  &c.  This  was  in  the  eighth  of 
Henry  the  Sixth,  and  we  have  a  plain  statute  making 
such  Appeals  a  prcemunire  in  Edward  the  Fourth4. 
Sir  Roger  Twysden5  observes,  '  the  truth  of  this  bar- 
ring Appeals  is  so  constantly  averred  by  all  the  ancient 
monuments  of  this  nation,  as  Philip  Scot6,  not  finding 
how  to  deny  it,  falls  upon  another  way ;  that,  if  the 
right  of  Appeals  were  abrogated,  it  concludes  not  the 
see  of  Rome  had  no  jurisdiction  over  this  Church.' 
The  concession  gives  countenance  to  our  present  in- 


1  [Hen.  de  Knyghton,  col.  2601, 1.  44,  etc.] 

2  [i.  e.  Henry  Beaufort,  brother  of  King  Henry  IV.] 

3  Rot.  Parl.  10°  Hen.  VI.  §  16.     [A  full  account  is  given  by 
Twysden,  Vind.  p.  52.] 

4  9°  Edw.    IV.    3.      [According   to    the    printed    'Rolls'  and 
'  Statutes',    no  parliament  assembled   this   year.      Perhaps   Full- 
wood's  authority  was  Sir  Edw.  Coke's  Reports,  (Part  v.  fol.  26,  b ; 
ed.  1624),  where  similar  language  is  used  and  the  same  reference 
given.      Coke,  however,  is  speaking  of  a  decision  of  the   Court  of 
King's  Bench.     The  great  Statutes  prohibiting  Appeals  to  Rome, 
under  the  penalty  of  a  Prsemunire,  are  16°  Ric.  II.  c.  5.  and  27° 
Edw.  III.  c.  1.] 

5  [Ubi  supra,  p.  53.] 

6  [Treatise  of  the  Schism  of  England,  p.  174  ;  ed.  Amsterdam, 
1650.] 


1 34  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

quiry ;  the  consequence  shall  be  considered  in  its 
proper  place. 

What  can  be  further  said,  in  pretence  of  a  quiet 
possession  of  Appeals  for  nine  hundred  years  toge- 
ther ?  Since  it  hath  been  found  to  be  interrupted 
all  along,  till  within  one  hundred  years  before  Henry 
VIII. 

Especially,  seeing  my  Lord  Bramhall  hath  made 
it  evident  by  clear  instances,  that  it  is  the  unanimous 
judgment  of  all  Christendom,  that  not  the  Pope,  but 
their  own  sovereigns  in  their  Councils  arc  the  last 
judges  of  their  national  liberties1. 


SECTION  II. 

OF  THE   POPE'S   POSSESSION  HERE   BY  HIS  LEGATES 
—OCCASION  OF  THEM—  ENTERTAINMENT  OF   THEM. 

IT  is  acknowledged  by  some,  that  citing  English- 
men to  appear  at  Rome  was  very  inconvenient  ; 
therefore  the  Pope  had  his  Legates  here,  to  execute 
his  power  without  that  inconvenience  to  us. 

How  the  Pope  had  possession  of  this  legatinc 
power,  is  now  to  be  inquired. 

The  correspondence  betwixt  us  and  Rome,  at 
first,  gave  rise  to  this  power  ;  the  messengers  from 
Rome  were  sometimes  called  Leyati,  though  at  other 
times  Nuncii. 

After  the  erection  of  Canterbury  into  an  Arch- 
bishopric, the  Archbishop  was  held,  quasi 


1  Vid.  Bramhall,  pp.   106—118;   [Vol.  i.  pp.  210,  ct  scqq.  nc\v 
cdit,] 


CHAP.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  135 

orbis  Papa,  as  Urban  II.  styled  him1  ;  he  exercising2 
vices  apostolicas  in  Anglia,  that  is,  used  the  same 
power  within  this  island,  the  Pope  did  in  other  parts. 

Consequently,  if  any  question  did  arise,  the  deter- 
mination was  in  Council  ;  as  the  deposing  Stygand:!, 
and  the  settling4  the  precedency  betwixt  Canterbury 
and  York.  The  instructions5  mentioned  of  Henry  I., 
the  right  of  the  realm6,  that  none  should  be  drawn 
out  of  it  auctoritate  apostolica,  do  assure  us,  that  our 
ancient  applications  to  the  Pope  were  acts  of  bro- 
therly confidence  in  the  wisdom,  piety,  and  kindness 
of  that  Church  ;  that  it  was  able  and  willing  to  advise 
and  assist  us  in  any  difficulty  ;  and  not  of  obedience, 
or  acknowledgement  of  jurisdiction,  —  as  appear  by 
that  letter7  of  Kenulphus  and  others  to  Pope  Leo  III. 
A.D.  797.  (Quibus  sapientice  clams,  —  'the  key  of  wis- 
dom,' not  authority,  was  acknowledged  therein.) 

Much  less  can  we  imagine,  that  the  Pope's  mes- 
sengers brought  hither  any  other  power,  than  that  of 
direction  and  counsel  at  first,  either  to  the  King  or 
Archbishop.  The  Archbishop  was  nullius  unquam 
Legati  ditioni  addictus  8  :  therefore  none  were  suffered 


1  Malmcsbur.  do   Gcstis  Pontif.   Angl.    [Lib.  I.   p.  223,  1.  13  : 
Gervas.  Dorobern.  col.  1327,  1.  58.] 

2  [Eadmer,  p.  58,  1.  43.] 

a  Florcnt.   Wigorn.   Chronicon,   A.D.  1070,  [pp.   636,  637;   ed. 
Francof.  1601.] 

4  [Cf.  Twysden's  Vindication,  pp.  25,  27,  72.] 

*  [Ibid.  p.  19.] 

«  [Vid.  Mat.  Paris,  A.D.  1246,  p.  699,  1.  10.] 

7  Malmcsbur.  do  Gcstis  Regum,  Lib.  i.  [p.  31,  1.  10,  etc.] 

8  [Gervas.  Dorobern.   Actus  Pontif.  Cantuar.  col.  1663,  1.  66. 
Gcrvase  of  Canterbury  is  also  the  authority  for  the  following  par- 
ticulars.     Vid.  col.  1485,  1.  63,  etc.  :   col.  1531,  1.  37,  etc.] 


136  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

to  wear  a  mitre  within  his.  province,  or  had  the  cro- 
sier carried,  nor  laid  any  excommunication  upon  this 
ground,  in  dicecesi  Archiepiscopi  apostolicam  non  tenere 
sententiam :  the  Church  of  Canterbury  being  then  es- 
teemed1 omnium  nostrum  mater  communis  sub  sponsi 
Jesu  Christi  dispositione. 

True,  the  Pope  did  prcecipere,  but  that  did  not 
argue  the  acknowledgement  of  his  power ;  (so  John 
Calvin  commanded  Knox2) :  the  question  is,  how  he 
was  obeyed?  It  is  certain  his  precepts,  if  disliked, 
were  questioned3,  opposed4,  and  those  he  sent  not  per- 
mitted to  meddle  with  those  things  they  came  about5. 

But  historians  observe,  that  we  might  be  wrought 
Occasion  ^  better  temper,  some  persons  were  admitted  into 

of  Legates. 

the  kingdom,  that  might  by  degrees  raise  the  papacy 
to  its  designed  height.  These  were  called  Legates ; 
but  we  find  not  any  courts  kept  by  them,  or  any 
power  exercised  with  effect,  beyond  what  the  King 
and  kingdom  pleased,  which  indeed  was  very  little. 

The  Pope's  Legate  was  at  the  Council  touching 
the  precedence  of  the  Archbishops  ;  but  he  subscribed 
the  sixteenth,  after  all  the  English  Bishops,  and  not 
like  the  Pope's  person  or  proctor,  (as  Sir  Roger  Twys- 
den6  proves). 

The  first  Council,  wherein  the  Pope's  Legate  pre- 
ceded Archbishops,  was  that  of  Vienne,  a  little  more 

1  Gervas.  Dorobern.  Actus  Pontif.  Cantuar.  [col.  1663, 1.  24.] 

2  Knox,  Hist.  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  93,  [ed.  1644.] 
»  Eadmer,  p.  92, 1.  40. 

4  Gervas.  Dorobern.  col.  1315,  1.  66. 

5  Ibid.  col.  1558,  I.  56.    [See  more  on  this  subject  in  Twysden's 
Vind.  pp.  25—27.] 

6  [P-  25.] 


CHAI-.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  137 

than  three  hundred  years  agon,  viz.  1311,  (as  the  same 
author l  observes) ;  wherein  he  looked  like  the  Legate 
of  his  holiness  indeed. 

But  let  us  examine  what  entertainment  the  power 
of  a  Legate  found  here.  The  Archbishop  was  jea- 
lous that  a  Legate,  residing  here,  would  prove2  in  suce 
dignitatis  prcejudicium  ;  and  the  King  himself  was  not 
without  suspicions,  and  therefore  would  suffer  none, 
so  much  as  to  be  taken  for  Pope,  but  whom  he  ap- 
proved ;  nor  any  to  receive  so  much  as  a  letter  from 
Rome,  without  acquainting  him  with  it ;  and  held  it 
an  undoubted  right  of  the  crown,  that  '  none  should 
be  admitted  to  do  the  office  of  a  Legate  here,  if  he 
himself  did  not  desire  it3.' 

Things  standing  thus,  in  A.D.  1100,  the  Archbishop 
of  Vienne  coming  over  reported  himself  that  he  had 
the  legatine  power  of  all  Britain  committed  to  him  ; 
but  finding  no  encouragement  to  use  his  commission, 
departed,  '  by  none  received  as  Legate,  nor  doing  any 
part  of  that  office4.' 

Fourteen  years  after,  Paschalis  II.,  by  letters  ex- 
postulates with  the  King  about  several  things,  in  par- 
ticular, '  his  non-admitting  either  messenger  or  letter, 
without  his  leave5.' 

A  year  after,  [he]  addressed  Anselm,  nephew  to  the 
late  Archbishop,  shewing  his  commission  vices  gerere 
apostolicas  in  Anglia.  This  made  known,  the  clergy 
and  nobility  in  Council  at  London,  sent  the  Arch- 

1  [p.  29.]  2  Mat.  Paris,  A.D.  1237,  p.  440, 1.  17. 

3  Eadmor,  p.  125, 1.  53,  etc.  ;  p.  6,  1.  25;  p.  113, 1.  1. 

4  Ibid.  p.  58, 1.  40,  etc. 

5  Ibid,  pp.  112—116. 


1 38  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

bishop  to  the  King  in  Normandy  to  make  known 
unto  him  the  ancient  custom  of  the  realm,  and  by 
his  advice  to  Rome,  '  ut  hcec  nova  annihilaret1.' 

After  this,  A.D.  1119,  the  King  sent  his  Bishops 
to  a  Council  held  by  Calixtus  II.  at  llheims,  with  in- 
structions among  other  things,  that  they  should  hum- 
bly hear  the  Pope's  precepts,  but  bring  no  superfluous 
adinventiones  into  his  kingdom2.' 

In  November  following,  the  Pope  and  King  had  a 
meeting3  at  Gisors  in  Normandy ;  where  Calixtus 
confirmed  unto  him  his  father's  usages,  in  special, 
that  of  sending  no  Legate  hither,  but  on  the  King's 
desire  :  and  when  the  same  Pope,  not  full  two  years 
after  his  grant  to  the  contrary,  addressed  another 
Legate  to  these  parts,  the  King's  wisdom  so  ordered 
it,  '  that  he  which  came  to  do  the  office  of  a  Legate 
in  all  Britain,  was  sent  as  he  came,  without  doing  any 
part  of  that  office4.' 

But  it  is  said  that  Calixtus  confirmed  unto  the 
King  his  father's  usages :  therefore  it  was  in  the 
Pope's  power  originally  and  by  delegation,  and  not 
in  the  King.  Accordingly  in  our  best  authors  (and 
in  particular,  Eadmer),  we  find  these  words,  collata, 
concessa,  impetrata,  permissa,  as  is  urged  in  answer 
to  my  Lord  Coke5. 

(1)    These  words  indeed  intimate  the  Pope's  kind- 

1  Eadmer,  p.  118,  1.  28  ;  p.  120. 

2  [Twysdon's  Vindication,  p.  19  :  on  the  authority  of  Ordcricus 
Vitalis,  pp.  857,  858.] 

3  [Vid.  Eadmer,  p.  125,  1.  49.] 

4  Ibid.  A.I).  1121,  p.  137, 1.  46;  p.  138, 1.  13,  etc. 

b  [viz.    by  Persons,  the  Jesuit,  in  his  Answer  to    Sir  Edward 
Coke's  Reports,  cap.  ix.  sect   8,  p.  200.] 


CIIAI>.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  139 

ness  and  peaceable  disposition  at  present,  viz.  that  he 
will  not  disturb,  but  allow  our  enjoyment  of  our  an- 
cient privileges  as  if  they  were  customs  concessa,  fungi 
permissa ;  the  same  Eadmer  calls l  antiqua  Anglice 
consuetudo,  libertas  regni. 

(2)  The  words   do  seem   also    to    intimate   the 
Pope's  claim  at  that  time:  but  the  true  question  is 
about  his  possession,  which  in  placing  Legates  there 
was  ever  denied  him,  not  as  a  thing  granted  formerly 
by  the  Pope,  but  as  one  of  the2  dignitates,  usus,  et  con- 
nuctudines  (as  Henry  I.  claimed  and  defended). 

(3)  Lastly,    they    rather    intimated    the    Pope's 
want  of  power,  than  proved  his  authority  here  ;  and 
what  our  princes    did  in  their  own  right,   he  would 
continue  to  them  as  a  privilege,  for  no  other  reason 
but  because  he  could  not  take  it  from  them,  or  durst 
not  deny  it  to  them.      So  he  dealt  with  Edward  the 
Confessor3 :     Vobis  et  posteris  vestris  Regibus  commit- 
timus  advocationem  et  tuitionem  ejusdem  loci;  but  long 
before  that,  our  Kings  looked  upon  it  as  their  office4 
regere  populum   Domini  et  Ecclesiam  ejus,   which   the 
Pope  knew  well  enough.     Therefore,   a  Legate  land- 
ing  in   England   in   Edward  the  Fourth's  time,   was 
obliged  to  take  oath,  that  he  would  attempt  nothing 
to  the  derogation  of  the  rights  of  the  King  or  crown5. 

In  Henry  the  Sixth's  nonage,  his  uncle  was  sent 
Legate   by  Martin  V.     Richard  Caudray  the   King's 

1  p.  125,  1.  33,  p.  118,  1.  33. 

2  [Vid.  Hen.  I.  Epist.  apml  Jorvalens.  col.  999,  1.  49.] 

3  [Ailrcd.  do  Vita  Edw.  col.  388, 1.  53,  inter  Scriptores  x.] 
1  Baron.  Annal.  Tom.  xi.  ad  an.   1059,  xxin. 

5  [See  Coke's  Reports,  Part  v.  fol.  27,  a:  cd.  1624.] 


140  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

attorney,  made  protestation l,  '  that  none  was  to  come 
as  Legate  from  the  Pope,  or  enter  the  kingdom  with- 
out the  King's  appointment':  a  right  enjoyed  from 
all  memory. 

In  the  reign  of  Henry  V.  the  design  of  sending  a 
Legate  from  Rome,  though  it  were  the  King's  own 
uncle,  was  opposed2;  the  enterprise  took  no  effect 
during  that  King's  reign.  And  in  the  eleventh  of 
King  Henry  IV.,  the  judges  unanimously  pronounce3, 
'  that  the  statutes  which  restrain  the  Pope's  provi- 
sions were  only  declaratory  of  the  common  laws  of 
England.' 

It  was  in  the  year  1245,  when  the  whole  state  of 
England  complained  of  the  Pope's  infamous  messen- 
ger, Non  obstante,  by  which  oaths,  customs,  &c.  were 
not  only  weakened  but  made  void ;  and  unless  the 
grievances  were  removed,  Oportebit  nos  ponere  murum 
pro  domo  Domini,  et  liber tate  Regni*, 

Yea  long  after  this,  in  the  year  1343,  Edward  III. 
made  his  addresses  likewise  to  Rome,  which  the  Pope 
branded  with  the  title  of  'rebellion5.'  But  to  requite 
him,  that  wise  and  stout  prince  made  the  statutes  of 
Provisors  and  Prcemunire6,  directly  opposed  to  the 
incroachments  and  usurpations  of  the  court  of  Rome. 

1  [The  Legato  here  spoken  of  was  Henry  Beaufort,  great  uncle 
of  King  Honry  VI.     The  original  document  is  printed    in  Fox, 
Vol.  I.  p.  802,  col.  2 ;  ed.  1684.] 

2  [This   was  the  same   Henry  Beaufort.     See  Duck's  Life  of 
Archbp  Chichele,  pp.  34,  et  seqq.   Lond.  1681.] 

3  [See  Coke's  Reports,  Part  v.  fol.  23,  a.] 

4  Mat.  Paris,  A.D.  1245,  1246,  [pp.  698,  699.] 

5  Walsingham,  [Hist.  A.D.  1343,  p.  149:  inter  Angl.  Script,  ed. 
Camden.  Francof.  1603.] 

B  [25°  Edw.  III.  Stat.  6,  $  3  ;  27°  Edw.  III.  c.  1.] 


CHAP.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  141 

Whereby  he  so  abated  their  power  in  England  for 
sundry  ages  following,  that  a  Dean  and  Chapter  was 
able  to  deal  with  the  Pope  in  England,  and  to  foil 
him  too1. 

The  sum  is,  during  the  reigns  of  all  the  British 
and  Saxon  Kings,  until  the  Norman  Conquest,  lega- 
tions from  Rome  were  seldom,  and  but  messengers : — 
a  Legatine  or  Nuncio's  court  we  find  not.  Gregory, 
Bishop  of  Ostium,  the  Pope's  own  Legate  did  confess, 
that  'he  was  the  first  Roman  priest  that  was  sent  into 
those  parts  of  Britain  from  the  time  of  St  Austin2.' 

When  these  Legates  multiplied,  and  usurped 
authority  over  us,  the  kingdom  would  not  bear  it ;  as 
appears  by  the  statute  of  Clarendon,  confirming  the 
ancient  British-English  custom,  with  the  consent  and 
oaths  of  all  the  Prelates  and  Peers  of  the  realm  :  and 
upon  this  custom  was  the  law  grounded,  "  If  any  one 
be  found  bringing  in  the  Pope's  letter  or  mandate, 
let  him  be  apprehended,  let  justice  pass  upon  him 
without  delay,  as  a  traitor  to  the  King  and  kingdom 3. 

And  all  along  afterwards  we  have  found,  that  still 
as  occasion  required,  the  same  custom  was  maintained 
and  vindicated  both  by  the  Church  and  State  of  the 
realm,  till  within  a  hundred  years  before  Henry  VIII. 

So  that  the  rejection  of  the  Pope's  Legate  is 
founded  in  the  ancient  right,  the  common  and  sta- 
tute laws  of  the  realm ;  and  the  legatine  power  is  a 
plain  usurpation  contrary  thereunto,  and  was  ever 

1  A.D.  1420,  Bramhall,  p.  99;  [Vol.  i.  p.  195,  new  ed.] 

2  Spelman,  Concil.  A.D.  784,  (.Tom.  i.  p.  293.] 

a  Mat.  Paris,  A.D.  1164,  [pp.  100,  101];  R.  de  Hovcdon,  [Annul, 
p.  496.] 


142  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  IX. 

looked  upon  as  such,  it  never  having  any  real  possession 
among  us  by  law,  or  quiet  possession  in  fact,  for  any 
considerable  time  together;  but  was  still  interrupted 
by  the  whole  kingdom,  by  new  declaratory  laws 
against  it. 

Thus,  we  have  seen  how  the  Pope's  possession  of 
the  formal  branch  of  jurisdiction,  by  Appeals  and  Le- 
gates, stood  here  from  St  Austin  to  Henry  VIII. ; 
and  that  '  it  was  quiet  and  uninterrupted  for  nine 
hundred  years  together,'  passeth  away  as  a  vapour  ;  the 
contrary  being  evident  by  as  authentic  testimonies  as 
can  be  desired.  And  now  wrhat  can  be  imagined  to 
enervate  them  ? 

If  it  be  urged  that  it  was  once  in  the  body  of 
our  laws,  viz.  in  Magna  Charta1,  Liceat  unicuique  de 
ccetero  exire  de  regno  nostro,  et  redire  salvo  et  secure  per 
terram  et  per  aquam,  salva  fide  nostra ;  nisi  in  tempore 
guerrce  per  aliquod  breve  tempus  ; — it  is  confessed. 

But  here  is  no  expression,  that  plainly  and  in 
terms  gives  licence  of  Appeals  to  Rome.  It  is  indeed 
said,  that  it  is  lawful  for  any  to  go  out  of  the  king- 
dom and  to  return  safe,  but  mark  the  conditions  fol- 
lowing, Nisi  in,  &c.  It  is  likely,  these  words  were  in- 
serted in  favour  of  Appeals,  but  it  may  be  the  authors 
were  timorous  to  word  it  in  a  more  plain  contradic- 
tion to  our  ancient  liberties. 

(2)  The  very  form  of  words  as  they  are,  would 
seem   to   intimate   that  the  custom  of  England  was 
otherwise. 

(3)  Lastly,  if  it  be  considered,  how  soon  after, 

1  [Aputl  Mat.  Paris,  p.  258,  I.  53,  etc.] 


CHAP.  IX.]  POSSESSION.  143 

and  with  what  unanimity  and  courage  our  ancient 
liberty  to  the  contrary  was  redeemed  and  vindicated, 
and  that  clause  left  out  of  Magna  Charta  ever  since, 
though  revised  and  confirmed  by  so  many  Kings  and 
Parliaments  successively,  it  is  only  an  argument  of  a 
sudden  and  violent  torrent  of  papal  power  in  King- 
John's  time,  not  of  any  grounded  or  well  settled 
authority  in  the  English  laws,  as  our  English  liberties 
have.  I  conclude  with  those  weighty  words  of  the 
Statute,  27°  Edw.  III.  c.  1 :  'Having  regard  to  the 
said  statute  made  in  the  time  of  his  said  grandfathers, 
which  statute  holdeth  always  in  force,  which  was 
never  annulled  or  defeated  in  any  point ;  and  foras- 
much as  he  bound  by  his  oath  to  do  the  same,  to  be 
kept  as  the  law  of  the  realm,  though  that  by  suffer- 
ance and  negligence  it  hath  been  since  attempted  to 
the  contrary1.' 

Whereupon,  it  is  well  observed,  that  Queen  Mary 
herself  denied  Cardinal  Peto2  to  appear  as  the  Pope's 
Legate  in  England  in  her  time  ;  and  caused  all  the 
sea-ports  to  be  stopped,  and  all  letters,  briefs,  and 
bulls  to  be  intercepted  and  brought  to  her3. 

1  Vid.  Preamble  of  the  statute. 

2  [See  '  Antiquities  of  the  English  Franciscans,'  Part  i.  p.  253, 
Lond.  1726.] 

3  [See  Collier's  Church  Hist.  Vol.  n.  p.  399,  fol.  ed.] 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  POPE'S  LEGISLATIVE   POWER  IN  ENGLAND 

BEFORE    HENRY    VIII.— NO    CANONS    OF 

THE  POPE  OBLIGE  US  WITHOUT  OUR 

CONSENT— OUR   KINGS,  SAXONS, 

DANES,     NORMANS,    MADE 

LAWS  ECCLESIASTICAL. 


WE  have  found  possession  of  the  executive  power 
otherwise  than  was  pretended ;  we  now  come 
to  consider  how  it  stood  with  the  legislative.  The 
Pope  indeed  claimed  a  power  of  making  and  imposing 
Canons  upon  this  Church  ;  but  Henry  VIII.  denied 
him  any  such  power,  and  prohibited  any  Canons 
whatsoever  to  be  executed  here,  without  the  King's 
licence  *. 

The  question  now  is,  Whether  the  Pope  enjoyed 
that  power  of  making  and  imposing  Canons  effectually 
and  quietly  here,  from  the  time  of  St  Augustine  to 
Henry  the  Eighth,  or  indeed  any  considerable  time 
together.  And  this  would  invite  us  to  a  greater  de- 
bate, who  was  supreme  in  the  English  Church  (the 
Pope  or  the  King)  during  that  time,  or  rather  who 
had  the  exercise  of  the  supremacy :  for  the  power  of 
making  laws  is  the  chief  flower  or  branch  of  the  su- 
premacy, and  he  that  freely,  and  without  interruption, 
enjoyed  this  power,  was  doubtless  in  the  possession 
of  the  supremacy. 

That  the  Pope  had  it  not,  so  long  and  so  quietly 

i  25«  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19. 


CHAP.  X.]  POSSESSION.  145 

as  is  pleaded  by  some,  and  that  our  Kings  have  gene- 
rally enjoyed  it,  will  both  together  appear  with  evi- 
dence enough  by  the  particulars  following  :  — 

(1)  If  none  were  to  be  taken  for  Pope  but  by 
the  King's  appointment,  sure  his  laws  were  not  to  be 
received,  but  with  the  King's  allowance. 

(2)  If  not  so  much  as  a  letter  could  be  received 
from  the   Pope  without  the  King's  knowledge,  who 
caused  words  prejudicial  to  the  Crown  to  be  renounced, 
sure  neither  his  laws. 

Both  the  antecedents  we  find  in  Eadmer1. 

(3)  If  no  Canons  could  be  made  here  without 
the  King's  authority,  or  being  made  could  have  any 
force,  but  by  the  King's  allowance  and  confirmation, 
where    was  the    Pope's  Supremacy  ?      That   Canons  Convoca. 
could  not  be  made  here  without  the  King's  authority  Kings. 
is  evident,  because  the  convocations  themselves  always 
were,  and  ought  to  be  assembled  by  the  King's  writ2. 
Besides   the   King   caused   some   to  sit  therein  who 
might  supervise  the  actions,  and  Legato  ex  parte  regis 

et  regni  inhiberent,  ne  ibi  contra  regiam  coronam  et  dig- 
nitatem aliquid  statuere  attentaret3  ;  and  when  any  did 
otherwise,  he  was  forced  to  retract  what  he  had  done 
(as  did  Peckham4)  ;  or  the  decrees  were  in  paucis  ser- 
(as  those  of  Boniface5). 


1  [Hist.  Nov.]  p.  6,  1.  26;  p-  113,  1.  1. 

2  Eadmer,  p.  24,  1.  5,  1.  11,  [The  Statute  25°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19, 
based  its  decision  on  what  '  always  had  been.'] 

3  Mat.  Paris,  A.  D.  1237,  p.  447,  1.  51. 

4  [Vid.  Selden.  de  Synedriis  ;  Opp.  Vol.   i.  Tom.  n.  p.  982  ; 
ed.  1726.] 

5  Lyndwood,  [Provinciale,   Lib.  IT.  de  Foro  Competent!,  p.  92, 
not.  d  ;  ed.  1679.] 

10 


146  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  X. 

Canons  If  Canons  were  made,  though  the  Pope's  Legate, 

confirmed  . 

by  Kings,  and  consequently  all  his  power,  was  at  the  making  of 
them,  yet  had  they  no  force  at  all  as  laws  over  us, 
without  the  King's  allowance  and  confirmation1.  The 
King  having  first  heard  what  was  decreed2  consensum 
prcebuit,  auctoritate  regia  et  potestate  concessit  et  con- 
firmavit  statuta  concilii,  '  by  his  kingly  power  he  con- 
firmed the  Statutes  of  the  Council  of  William  Arch- 
bishop 'of  Canterbury,  and  the  Legate  of  the  holy 
Roman  Church,  celebrated  at  Westminster ' — '  By  the 
assent  of  the  King,  et  primorum  omnium  Regni,  the 
chapters  subscribed  were  promulged3.' 

Twysden  concludes4:  "As  for  Councils,  it  is  cer- 
tain none  from  Rome  did,  till  1125,  intermeddle  in 
calling  any  here5."  If  they  did  come  to  them,  as  to 
Calcuith,  the  King,  upon  the  advice  of  the  Arch- 
bishop, statuit  diem  concilii,  '  appointed  the  day  of  the 
Council.'  So  when  William  I.  held  one  at  Winchester, 
1070,  for  deposing  Stygand,  though  there  came  to  it 
three  sent  from  Alexander  II.,  yet  it  was  held,  jubente 
et  presente  Rege,  who  was6  president  of  it. 

1  Eadmer,  p.  6, 1.  29. 

2  [Continuatio  ad]  Florent.   Wigom.  A.D.    1127,  p.  663:  [ed. 
Francof.  1601.] 

3  Gervas.  Dorobern.  A.D.  1175,  col.  1429, 1.  16. 

4  [Historical  Vind.  pp.  24,  25.    The  above  instances,  and  others 
of  a  like  nature,  may  be  seen  in  Twysden's  chapter  on  the  autho- 
rity of  the  crown  in  matters  ecclesiastical.     Ibid.  pp.  129,  et  seqq.] 

6  [In  this  case,  as  in  others,  the  reading  of  the  new  edition  of 
Twysden's  Vindication  has  been  inserted  into  our  Author's  text.] 

6  [The  authority  is  the  Life  of  Archbp.  Lanfranc,  c.  vi.,  pre- 
fixed to  the  Paris  edition  of  his  works.  In  a  council  touching 
precedency  between  the  sees  of  Canterbury  and  York,  the  pope's 
legate  subscribed  the  sixteenth,  after  all  the  English  bishops. 
Twysden,  Ibid.] 


CHAP.  X.]  POSSESSION.  1 47 

All  our  Canons  are  therefore  (as  they  are  justly  Canons 
called)    the    King's   ecclesiastical  Laws ;  because  no  laws. 
Canons  have  the  power  of  Laws,  but  such  as  he  allows 
and  confirms :  and  whatsoever   Canons  he  confirmed 
of  old,  that  had  their  original  from  a  foreign  power, 
he  allowed  for  the  sake  of  their  piety  or  equity,  or  as 
a  means  of  communion  with  the  Church  from  whence 
they  came ;  but  his  allowance  or  confirmation  gave 
them  all  the  authority  they  had  in  England. 

It  is  a  point  so  plain  in  history,  that  it  is  beyond  Before  the 
question,  that  during  all  the  time  from  St  Gregory  to 
the  Conquest,  the  British,  Saxon,  and  Danish  Kings 
(without  any  dependence  on  the  Pope)  did  usually 
make  Ecclesiastical  Laws.  Witness  the  laws1  of  M- 
thelbirht,  Ine,  Wihtraed,  Alfred,  Edward,  ^Ethelstan, 
Edmund,  Edgar,  Ethelred,  Cnut,  and  Edward  the 
Confessor ;  among  whose  laws2,  one  makes  it  the 
office  of  a  King,  to  govern  the  Church  as  the  Vicar 
of  God. 

Indeed,  at  last  the  Pope  was  officiously  kind,  and 
did  bestow  after  a  very  formal  way  upon  the  last  of 
those  Kings,  Edward  the  Confessor,  a  privilege,  which 
all  his  predecessors  had  enjoyed  as  their  own  undoubted 
right  before,  viz.  the  protection  of  all  the  Churches 
of  England,  and  power  to  him  and  his  successors  the 
Kings  of  England  for  ever,  '  in  his  stead  to  make  just 
ecclesiastical  Constitutions,  with  the  advice  of  their 
Bishops  and  Abbots3.'  But  with  thanks  to  his  Holi- 
ness, our  Kings  still  continued  their  ancient  custom 

1  [See  'Ancient  Laws  and  Institutes,'  ed.  Thorpe,  Vol.  i.J 

2  [Leges  Edw.  Conf.  sect.  xvrn.  VoL  i.  p.  499.] 

3  [Vid.  Spelman.  Concil.  Tom.  I.  p.  634.] 

10—2 


1 48  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  X. 

which  they  had  enjoyed  from  the  beginning,  in  the 
right  of  the  Crown,  without  respect  to  his  courtesy 
in  that  matter. 

After  the  Conquest,  our  Norman  Kings  did  also 
exercise  the  same  legislative  power  in  ecclesiastical 
causes  over  ecclesiastical  persons  from  time  to  time, 
with  the  consent  of  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal. 
Hence  all  those  statutes  concerning  benefices,  tithes, 
advowsons,  lands  given  in  mortmain,  prohibitions, 
consultations,  prcemunires,  quare-impedits,  privilege  of 
clergy,  extortions  of  ecclesiastical  courts  or  officers, 
regulations  of  fees,  wages  of  priests,  mortuaries,  sanc- 
tuaries, appropriations ;  and  in  sum,  as  Bishop  Bram- 
hall  adds,  "all  things  which  did  belong  to  the  external 
subsistence,  regiment,  and  regulating  of  the  Church1;" 
and  this  in  the  reigns  of  our  best  Norman  Kings  be- 
fore the  Reformation. 

But  what  laws  do  we  find  of  the  Pope's  making 
in  England  ?  Or  what  English  law  hath  he  ever  effec- 
tually abrogated  ?  It  is  true  many  of  the  Canons  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  were  here  observed ;  but  before 
they  became  obliging,  or  had  the  force  of  laws,  the 
King  had  power  in  his  great  Council  to  receive  them, 
if  they  were  judged  convenient,  or  if  otherwise  to 
reject  them. 

It  is  a  notable  instance  that  we  have  of  this,  in 
Henry  the  Third's  time2.  When  some  Bishops  pro- 
posed in  Parliament  the  reception  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical Canon,  for  the  legitimation  of  children  born  be- 

1  p.  73 ;  [Works,  Vol.  i.  pp.  138,  139  ;  ed.  1842.] 

2  20°  Hen.  III.  c.  9.    [This  and  the  following  instance  are  also 
from  Bramhall,  ubi  supra,  p.  140.] 


CHAP.  X.]  POSSESSION.  149 

fore  marriage,  all  the  Peers  of  the  Realm  stood  up, 
and  cried  out  with  one  voice,  '  Nolumus  leges  Anglice 
mutari,"1  '  we  will  not  have  the  laws  of  England  to  be 
changed.'  A  clear  evidence  that  the  Pope's  Canons 
were  not  English  laws,  and  that  the  Popish  Bishops 
knew  they  could  not  be  so,  without  the  Parliament. 

Likewise  the  King  and  Parliament  made  a  legis- 
lative exposition1  of  the  Canon  of  the  Council  of 
Lyons,  concerning  bigamy ;  which  they  would  not  have 
done  had  they  not  thought  they  had  power  according 
to  the  fundamental  laws  of  England,  either  to  receive 
it  or  reject  it. 

These  are  plain  and  undeniable  evidences,  that 
when  Popery  was  at  highest,  the  Pope's  Supremacy 
in  making  laws  for  the  English  Church  was  very  inef- 
fectual, without  the  countenance  of  a  greater  and 
more  powerful,  viz.,  the  supremacy  of  our  own  Kings. 

Now  admit  that  during  some  little  space  the  Pope 
did  impose,  and  England  did  consent  to  the  authority  Consent 

admitted . 

of  his  Canons,  (as  indeed  the  very  rejecting  of  that 
authority  intimates) ;  yet  that  is  very  short  of  the 
possession  of  it  without  interruption  for  nine  hun- 
dred years  together,  the  contrary  being  more  than 
evident. 

However  this  consent  was  given  either  by  permis-  By  per- 

f  •  i    miss'on- 

sion  or  grant.  If  only  by  permission,  whether  through 
fear  or  reverence,  or  convenience,  it  signifies  nothing, 
when  the  King  and  kingdom  see  cause  to  vindicate 
our  ancient  liberties,  and  resolve  to  endure  it  no 
longer. 

i  4°  Edw.  I.  c.  5. 


150  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  X. 

Or  by  If  a  grant  be  pretended,  it  was  either  from  the 

grant. 

King  alone,  or  joined  with  his  Parliament.  If  from 
the  King  alone,  he  could  grant  it  for  his  time  only, 
and  the  power  of  resuming  any  part  of  the  prerogative 
granted  away  by  the  predecessors,  accompanies  the 
Crown  of  the  successor ;  and  fidelity  to  his  office  and 
kingdom  obligeth  him  in  justice  to  retrieve  and  re- 
cover it. 

I  believe  none  will  undertake  to  affirm,  that  the 
grant  was  made  by  the  law,  or  the  King  with  his  Par- 
liament ;  yet  if  this  should  be  said  and  proved  too,  it 
would  argue  very  little  to  the  purpose ;  for  this  is  to 
establish  iniquity  by  a  law.  The  King's  prerogative, 
as  head  of  this  Church,  lieth  too  deep  in  the  very 
constitution  of  the  kingdom,  the  foundation  of  our 
common  law,  and  in  the  very  law  of  nature ;  and  is 
no  more  at  the  will  of  the  Parliament,  than  the  fun- 
damental liberties  of  the  subject. 

Lastly,  the  same  power  that  makes  can  repeal  a 
law :  if  the  authority  of  papal  Canons  had  been  ac- 
knowledged, and  ratified  by  Parliament  (which  cannot 
be  said),  it  is  most  certain  it  was  revoked  and  re- 
nounced by  an  equal  power,  viz.,  of  Henry  the  Eighth, 
and  the  whole  body  of  the  kingdom,  both  civil  and 
ecclesiastical. 

It  is  the  resolution  both  of  reason  and  law,  that 
no  prescription  of  time  can  be  a  bar  to  the  Supreme 
Power ;  but  that  for  the  public  good  it  may  revoke  . 
any  concessions,  permissions  or  privileges.  Thus  it 
was  declared  in  Parliament  in  Edward  the  Third's 
reign,  when  reciting  the  statute  of  Edward  the  First ; — 


CHAP.  X.]  POSSESSION.  151 

they  say1,  '  the  statute  holdeth  always  in  force,  and 
that  the  King  is  bound  by  oath  to  cause  the  same 
to  be  kept,'  (and  consequently,  if  taken  away,  to  be 
restored  to  its  observation)  '  as  the  law  of  the  land : ' 
that  is,  the  common,  fundamental,  unalterable  law  of 
the  land. 

Besides  the  case  is  most  clear,  that  when  Henry 
VIII.  began  his  reign,  the  laws  asserting  the  Supreme 
Authority  in  causes,  and  over  persons  ecclesiastical, 
were  not  altered  or  repealed  ;  and  Henry  VIII.  used 
his  authority  against  papal  incroachments,  and  not 
against,  but  according  to  the  statute,  as  well  as  the 
common  law  of  the  land.  Witness  all  those  noble 
laws  of  Provisors  and  Prcemunire,  which  (as  my  Lord 
Bramhall2  saith)  "we  may  truly  call  the  palladium  of 
England,  which  preserved  it  from  being  swallowed  up 
in  that  vast  gulph  of  the  Roman  Court ;  made  by 
Edward  I.,  Edward  III.,  Richard  II.,  Henry  IV." 

1  [27°  Edw.  III.  '  Preamble.'] 

2  [Schism  Guarded.  Part  I.  Disc,  iv.;  Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  433.] 


CHAPTER  XL 

OF  THE  POWER  OF  LICENCES,  &c.  HERE,  IN 

EDWARD  III.,  RICHARD  II.,  HENRY  IV., 

HENRY  V.,  HENRY  VI.,  HENRY  VII. 


HP  HOUGH  the  Pope  be  denied  the  legislative  and 
-*-  judiciary  (or  executive)  power  in  England,  yet, 
if  he  be  allowed  his  dispensatory  power,  that  will  have 
the  effect  of  laws,  and  fully  supersede  or  impede  the 
execution  of  laws,  in  ecclesiastical  causes,  and  upon 
ecclesiastical  persons. 

It  is  confessed,  the  Pope  did  usurp  and  exercise 
this  strange  power,  after  a  wonderful  manner  in  Eng- 
land, before  Henry  VIII.,  by  his  licences,  dispensa- 
tions, impositions,  faculties,,  grants,  rescripts,  dela- 
gacies,  and  other  such  kind  of  instruments,  as  the 
statute  25°  Henry  VIII.  mentions 1 ; — and  that  this 
power  was  denied  or  taken  from  him  by  the  same 
statute,  (as  also2  by  another,  28°  Henry  VII.,)  and 
placed  in  (or  rather  reduced  to)  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  saving  the  rights  of 
the  See  of  York, — in  all  causes  convenient  and  ne- 
cessary for  the  honour  and  safety  of  the  King,  the 
wealth  and  profit  of  the  Realm,  and  not  repugnant  to 
the  laws  of  Almighty  God. 

The  grounds  of  removing  this  power  from  the 
Pope,  as  they  are  expressed  in  that  excellent  pre- 

i  25°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  21.  2  28°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  16. 


CHAI-.  XL]  POSSESSION.  153 

amble   to   the    said    statute1,    25°   Henry   VIII.,   are 
worthy  our  reflection  : — they  are 

(1)  The  Pope's  usurpation  in  the  premises. 

(2)  His  having  obtained  an  opinion  in  many  of 
the  people,  that  he  had  full  power  to  dispense  with 
all  human  laws,  uses,  and  customs,  in  all  causes  spi- 
ritual. 

(3)  He  had  practised  this  strange  usurpation  for 
many  years. 

(4)  This  his  practice  was  in  great  derogation  of 
the  imperial  Crown  of  this  realm. 

(5)  England  recogniseth  no  superior,  under  God, 
but  the  King  only,  and  is  free  from  subjection  to  any 
laws  but  such  as  are  ordained  within  this  realm,  or 
admitted  customs  by  our  own  consent  and  usage,  and 
not  as  laws  of  any  foreign  power. 

(6)  And  lastly,  that  according  to  natural  equity, 
the  whole  state  of  our  realm  in  Parliament  hath  this 
power  in  it,  and  peculiar  to  it,  to  dispense  with,  alter, 
abrogate,  &c.,  our  own  laws  and  customs  for  public 
good ;    which  power  appears  by  wholesome  Acts  of 
Parliament,  made  before  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  in 
the  time  of  his  progenitors. 

For  these  reasons  it  was  enacted2  in  those  sta- 
tutes of  Henry  VIII.,  '  That  no  subject  of  England 
should  sue  for  licences,  &c.,  henceforth  to  the  Pope, 
but  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.' 

Now  it  is  confessed  before,  and  in  the  preamble 
to  the  statute,  that  the  Pope  had  used  this  power  for 
many  years ;  but  this  is  noted  as  an  aggravation  of 

i  [c.  21.]  2  [25°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  21.  $  2.] 


154  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XI. 

the  grievance,  and  one  reason  for  redress  ; — but 
whether  he  enjoyed  it  from  the  time  of  Saint  Austin, 
or  how  long  quietly,  is  the  proper  question  ;  especially 
seeing  the  laws  of  the  land,  made  by  king  Henry's 
predecessors,  are  pleaded  by  him  in  contradiction 
to  it. 
No  in.  Yea,  who  will  come  forth  and  shew  us  one  instance 

stance  1 100 

years  after  of  a  papal  dispensation  in  England  for  the  first  eleven 
hundred  years  after  Christ  ?  If  not,  five  hundred  of 
the  nine  hundred  years'  prescription,  and  the  first  five 
hundred  too,  as  well  as  the  first  eleven  hundred  of 
the  fifteen,  are  lost  to  the  Popes,  and  gained  to  the 
prescription  of  the  Church  of  England.  But 

Did  not  the  Church  of  England,  without  any 
reference  to  the  Court  of  Rome,  use  this  power 
during  the  first  eleven  hundred  years  ?  What  man  is 
so  hardy  as  to  deny  it,  against  the  multitude  of  plain 
instances  in  history  ? 

Did  not  our  Bishops  relax  the  rigour  of  ecclesias- 
tical Canons?  Did  not  all  Bishops,  all  over  the 
Christian  world,  do  the  like  before  the  monopoly  was 
usurped l  ? 

In  the  laws  of  Alfred  alone2,  and  in  the  conjoint 
laws3  of  Edward  and  Guthrum,  how  many  sorts  of 
ecclesiastical  crimes  were  dispensed  with,  by  the  sole 

1  ["  According  to  Thomassin  (Vet.  ct  Nov.  Eccl.  Discip.  Tom.  n. 
p.  606)  dispensations  and  licences  were  originally  granted  to   all 
Bishops ;  but  gradually  in  the  tenth  and  following  centuries,  they 
were  allowed  to  devolve  to,  or  were  usurped  by,  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff's."   Mr  Palmer's  '  Treatise  on  the  Church,'  Vol.  i.  p.  335 ;  3rd 
edit.] 

2  [See  'Ancient  Laws  and  Institutes,'  ed.  Thorpe,  Vol.  i.  pp.  44. 
et  seqq.]  3  [Ibid.  pp.  166,  et  seqq.] 


CIIAI-.  XI. J  POSSESSION.  155 

authority  of  the  King  and  Church  of  England ;  and 
the  like  we  find  in  the  laws  of  some  other  Saxon 
kings. 

Dunstan  the  archbishop  had  excommunicated  a 
great  count :  he  made  his  peace  at  Rome ;  the  Pope 
commands  his  restitution.  Dunstan  answered l,  "  I 
Avill  obey  the  Pope  willingly  when  I  see  him  penitent, 
but  it  is  not  God's  will  that  he  should  lie  in  his  sin 
free  from  ecclesiastical  discipline  to  insult  over  us. 
God  forbid  that  I  should  relinquish  the  law  of  Christ 
for  the  cause  of  any  mortal  man."  This  great  instance 
doth  two  things  at  once,  justifieth  the  Archbishop's, 
and  destroyeth  the  Pope's  authority  in  the  point. 

The  Church  of  England  dispensed  with  those 
irreligious  nuns  in  the  days  of  Lanfranc2,  with  the 
counsel  of  the  King;  and  with  queen  Maud3,  the  wife 
of  Henry  the  First,  in  the  like  case,  in  the  days  of 
Anselm,  without  any  suit  to  Rome  or  foreign  dis- 
pensation. 

These  are  great  and  notorious  and  certain  in- 
stances ;  and  when  the  Pope  had  usurped  this  power 
afterwards,  it  is  observed  that  as  the  '  Delected  Cardi- 
nals'  style  the  avaricious  dispensations  of  the  Pope4 
'  sacrilegious,'  so  our  Statutes  of  Provisors5  expressly 
say,  they  are  "  the  undoing  and  destruction  of  the 
common  law  of  the  land." 

1  [Apud  Spclman,  Concil.  Tom.  i.  p.  481.] 

2  Lanfranc,   epist.    xxxil.    [Opp.    p.  316,  col.  2.  c ;    cd.    Paris, 
1648.] 

3  Eadmor,  [Hist.  Nov.]  pp.  56,  57. 

4  [See  the  document  referred  to  in  Brown's  Appendix  to  the 
'Fasciculus  Rerum/  etc.,  pp.  232,  et  seqq.] 

5  25°  Edw.  III.  [Stat.  vi.  c.  2.] 


1 56  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XI. 

Accordingly,  the  King,  Lords  and  Commons,  com- 
plained of  this  abuse,  as  a  mighty  grievance ;  "  of 
the  frequent  coming  among  them  of  this  infamous 
messenger,  the  Pope's  Non-obstante,"  (that  is,  his  dis- 
pensations), "by  which  oaths,  customs,  writings,  grants, 
statutes,  rights,  privileges,  were  not  only  weakened, 
but  made  void1." 

Sometimes  these  dispensative  Bulls  came  to  legal 
trials.  Boniface  VIII.  dispensed  with  the  law  whereby 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  Visitor  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford,  and  by  his  Bull  exempted  the 
University  from  his  jurisdiction ;  and  that  Bull  was 
decreed  void  in  Parliament  by  two  successive  Kings, 
as  being  obtained  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Crown,  the 
weakening  of  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  kingdom, 
in  favour  of  heretics,  Lollards,  &c....and  to  the  pro- 
bable ruin  of  the  said  University 2. 

In  interruption  of  this  Papal  usurpation,  were  those 
many  laws  made  25°  Edward  I.  and  35°  Edward  L, 
25°  Edward  III.  and  27°  &  28°  Edward  III.,  and  after- 
wards more  expressly  in  the  sixteenth3  of  Richard  II., 
where  complaining  of  processes  and  censures  upon 
Bishops  of  England,  because  they  executed  the  King's 
commandments  in  his  courts,  they  express  the  mis- 
chiefs to  be  '  the  disinherison  of  the  Crown,'  '  the 
destruction  of  the  King,  laws,  and  realm ;'  that  '  the 
Crown  of  England  is  subject  to  none  under  God  ;'  and 

1  Mat.  Paris,  A.D.  1246,  [p.  699 ;  ed.  1639. ] 

2  [Twysden   (Hist.   Vindication,  pp.  84,  85,   new   ed.)   narrates 
the  circumstances  at  length,  from  the  Rolls  of  Parl.  13°  Hen.  IV. 
$$  15, 16,  17.] 

3  [c.  5  ;  Statute  of  Prsemunire.] 


CIIAI-.  XL]  POSSESSION.  157 

both  the  clergy  and  laity  severally  and  severely  pro- 
test to  defend  it  against  the  Pope ;  and  the  same 
King  contested  the  point  himself  with  him,  and  would 
not  yield  it1. 

"  An  excommunication  by  the  Archbishop,  albeit  it 
be  disanulled  by  the  Pope  or  his  legates,  is  to  be 
allowed ;  neither  ought  the  Judges  to  give  any  allow- 
ance of  any  such  sentence  of  the  Pope  or  his  legate," 
according  to  16  Edward  III.  Tit.  Excom.  4.2 

For  the  Pope's  Bulls  in  special,  our  laws  have 
abundantly  provided  against  them,  as  well  in  case  of 
excommunication  as  exemption3, — as  is  evidenced  by 
my  Lord  Coke  out  of  our  English  laws4.  He  mentions 
a  particular  case,  wherein  the  Bull  was  pleaded  for 
evidence  that  a  person  stood  excommunicate  by  the 
Pope ;  but  it  was  not  allowed,  because  no  certificate 
testifying  this  excommunication  appeared  from  any 
Bishop  of  England5. 

So  late  as  Henry  IV.6,  "  if  any  person  of  religion 
obtain  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  be  exempt  from 
obedience,  regular  or  ordinary,  he  is  in  case  of  a  prce- 
munire ;  which  is  an  offence  contra  regem,  coronam  et 
dignitatem  suas" 

1  [Viz.  in    the    case   above    mentioned,    when   the  pope  had 
exempted  the  University  of  Oxford  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Arch- 
bishop Arundel.] 

2  Lord  Coke,  Caudrey's  Case,  [Reports,  Part  v.  fol.  14,  b ;  ed. 
1624.] 

3  Vid.  30  Edw.  III.  Lib.  Ass.  Placit.  19. 

4  Ubi  supra,  fol.  15,  b. 

5  [See  Coke,  ubi  supra;  the  authority  is]   31  Edw.  III.   Tit. 
Excom.  6.     The  same  again,  8  Hen.  VI.  fol.  3,  [Coke,  fol.  26,  a] ; 
12  Edw.  IV.  fol.  16,  [Coke,  fol.  27,  a] ;   2  Rich.  III.  fol.  22,  [Coke, 
27,  b] ;  1  Hen.  VII.  fol.  10,  [Coke,  27,  b.] 

6  Stat.  2°  Hen.  IV.  c.  3,  [in  Coke's  Reports,  Part  v.  fol.  23,  b.] 


158  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XI. 

Again  more  plain  to  our  purpose,  in  Henry  the 
Fifth's  time,  after  great  complaint  in  Parliament  of 
the  grievances,  by  reason  of  the  Pope's  licences  to 
the  contrary,  it  was  enacted1,  that  "the  King,  willing 
to  avoid  such  mischiefs,  hath  ordained  and  established, 
that  all  the  incumbents  of  every  benefice  of  holy 
Church  of  the  patronage... of  spiritual  patrons,  might 
quietly  enjoy  their  benefices  without  being  inquieted... 
by  any  colour  of  provisions,  licences  and  acceptations 
by  the  Pope, — and  that  all  such  licences  and  pardons 
upon,  and  by  such  provisions  made  in  any  manner, 
should  be  void  and  of  no  valour  ;  and  that  the  mo- 
lestors,  &c....by  virtue  thereof  incur  the  punishments 
contained  in  the  Statutes  of  Provisors  before  that 
time  made." 

"  The  King  only  may  grant  or  licence  to  found  a 
spiritual  incorporation" — as  it  is  concluded  by  our 
law2,  even  in  Henry  the  Sixth's  time. 

Further,  in  Edward  the  Fourth's  reign,  "  the  Pope 
granted  to  the  Prior  of  Saint  John's  to  have  a  sanc- 
tuary within  his  priory  ;  and  this  was  pleaded  and 
claimed  by  the  Prior ;  but  it  was  resolved  by  the 
Judges,  that  the  Pope  had  no  power  to  grant  any 
sanctuary  within  this  realm,  and  therefore  by  judg- 
ment of  the  law  it  was  disallowed3." 

We  have  thus,  fully  I  hope,  justified  the  words  of 
the  statute  of  Henry  VIII.,  that  the  laws  made  in  the 
times  of  his  predecessors,  did  in  effect  the  same 
things ;  especially  those  of  Edward  L,  Edward  III., 

1  Stat.  3°  Hen.  V.  c.  4;  [Coke,  ibid.  fol.  25,  a.J 

2  9  Hen.  VI.  fol.  16,  b ;  [Coke,  ibid.  fol.  26,  a.] 
*  I  Hen.  VII.  fol.  20 ;  [Coke,  ibid.] 


CHAP.  XL]  POSSESSION.  159 

Richard  II.,  Henry  IV.,  which  that  Parliament,  24° 
Henry  VIII.,  refer  us  to1,  expressly  and  particularly, 
— and  how  small  time  is  left,  for  the  Pope's  prescrip- 
tion (if  any  at  all  for  his  quiet  possession)  of  the 
power  of  licences  in  England.  Yet  it  is  confessed  he 
had  usurped,  and  by  several  instances  been  heedlessly, 
or  timorously  permitted,  to  exercise  such  a  power,  for 
many  years  together,  as  the  Parliament  acknowledg- 
eth ;  though  contrary  to  the  ancient  liberty,  the  com- 
mon law,  and  so  many  plain  decrees  of  our  Judges, 
and  statutes  of  the  land  from  age  to  age,  as  have 
appeared. 

i  24°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

OF  THE  PATRONAGE  OF  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH 
—IN  OUR  KINGS— BY   HISTORY— LAW. 


flower  of  the  Crown  was  derived  from  our 
-•-  ancient  English  and  British  kings  to  William  the 
Conqueror,  William  Rufus,  and  Henry  I. ;  who  enjoyed 
the  right  of  placing  in  vacant  Sees,  by  the  tradition  of 
a  ring  and  a  crosier-staff,  without  further  approbation, 
ordination,  or  confirmation  from  Rome,  for  the  first 
eleven  hundred  years.  Indeed  then  Hildebrand1,  and 
after  Calixtus2,  did  condemn  and  prohibit  all  investi- 
tures taken  from  a  lay  hand. 

That  before  Hildebrand  this  was  the  undoubted 
right  of  the  Crown,  is  evident  both  by  history  and 
law. 

For  history,  we  find  Malmsbury  notes3,  that  king- 
Edgar  did  grant  to  the  monks  of  Glastonbury  "  the 
free  election  of  their  Abbot  for  ever :"  but  he  "  re- 
served to  himself  and  to  his  heirs"  the  power  to 
invest  the  brother  elected  "  by  the  tradition  of  a 
pastoral  staff." 

Therefore  Ingulph4  the  Abbot  of  Croyland,  in  the 
time  of  the  Conqueror,  saith,  "  For  many  years  (he 
might  have  said  ages)  past,  there  hath  been  no  free 

1  [A.D.  1080;  Vid.  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  x.  381.] 

•2  [i.  e.  Calixtus  II.  A.D.  1119 ;  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  x.  862,  can.  ii.J 

3  Malmesbur.  de  Gestis  Regum,  Lib.  n.  [p.  57  ;  ed.  1601.] 

4  [Histor.  p.  896;    inter  Rerum  Angl.  Script,  ed.  Francofurt. 
1601.] 


CHAP.  XII.]  POSSESSION.  161 

election  of  prelates :  but  the  King's  Court  did  confer 
all  dignities,  according  to  their  pleasure,  by  a  ring 
and  a  crosier." 

Lanfranc  desired  of  William  the  Conqueror  the 
patronage  of  the  Abbey  of  St  Austin ;  but  the  King 
answered,  "that  he  would  keep  all  the  crosier-staffs" 
(i.  e.  investitures)  "in  his  own  hand1."  The  same  is 
testified  of'Anselm2  himself  by  Eadmer :  "He,  after 
the  manner  and  example  of  his  predecessor,  was 
inducted  according  to  the  custom  of  the  land,  and 
did  homage  to  the  King  as  Lanfranc  "  (his  predecessor 
in  the  See  of  Canterbury)  "  in  his  time  had  done." 
And  William  the  agent  of  Henry  I.  protested  openly' 
to  Pope  Paschal,  "  I  would  have  all  men  here  to 
know,  that  my  lord  the  King  of  England  will  not 
suffer  the  loss  of  his  investitures  for  the  loss  of  his 
kingdom3."  Indeed  Pope  Paschal  was  as  resolute, 
though  it  be  said  not  so  just  in  his  answer  :  "I  speak 
it  before  God,  Paschal  the  Pope  will  not  suffer  him  to 
keep  them  without  punishment,  no,  not  for  the  re- 
demption of  his  head4." 

Here  was  indeed  a  demand  made  with  confidence 
and  courage ;  but  had  that  Pope  no  better  title  than 
that  of  possession  to  claim  by,  he  had  certainly  none 
at  all.  For  (as  Eadmer5  concludes)  "  the  cause  seemed 
a  new  thing  (or  innovation)  to  this  our  age,  and 
unheard  of  to  the  English,  from  the  time  that  the 

1  [Gervas.  Dorobern,  col.  1327  ;  inter  Scriptores  x  ] 

2  Eadmer.  Hist,  Nov.  p.  20 ;  [ed.  Selden.] 

3  Ibid.  p.  73.  *  [Ibid.] 

5  In  Preefat.  p.  2.     [For  much  valuable  information  respecting 
Investitures,    see  Bp.   Carleton's   'Jurisdiction,'    Chap.    vn.    §  iv. 
pp.  137—161  ;  ed.  Lond.  1610.] 
11 


1 62  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XII. 

Normans  began  to  reign  (that  I  say  not  sooner)  ;  for 
from  the  time  that  William  the  Norman  conquered 
the  land,  no  Bishop  or  Abbot  was  made  before  An- 
selm,  who  did  not  at  first  do  homage  to  the  King,  and 
from  his  hand,  by  the  gift  of  a  crosier-staff,  receive 
the  investiture  to  his  Bishopric  or  Abbacy,  except  two 
Bishops  of  Rochester ;" — who  were  surrogates  to  the 
Archbishop,  and  inducted  by  him  by  the  King's  leave. 

Indeed  now  the  Pope  began  to  take  upon  him  in 
earnest,  and  to  require  an  oath  of  fidelity  of  the 
Archbishop  when  he  gave  him  the  pall,  and  to  deny 
that  pall  if  he  would  not  take  it.  A  new  oath  never 
before  heard  of,  or  practised : — "  an  oath  of  obe- 
dience" to  himself,  as  it  is  expressly  called  in  the 
edition1  of  Gregory  XIII. — an  oath  not  established 
by  any  Council,  but  only  by  papal  authority,  by  Pas- 
chalis  himself,  as  Gregory  IX.  recordeth2. 

This  oath  at  first,  though  new,  was  modest,  bound- 
ing the  obedience  of  the  Archbishops  only  by  the 
rule  of  the  holy  Fathers,  as  we  find  in  the  old  Roman 
Pontifical ;  but  it  was  quickly  changed  from  '  Regular 
Sanctorum  Patrum'  to  '  Regalia  Sancti  Petri.'  "  The 
change,"  as  my  lord  Bramhall  observes,  "  in  letters 
was  not  great,  but  in  sense  abominable3." 

Bellarmine4  would  persuade  us,  that  the  like  oath 

1  [Greg.  IX.   Decretal.  Lib.  i.   '  de  Electione,'  etc,  cap.  iv. ;  in 
the    '  Corpus   Juris   Canonici.'     These    decretals   were   published 
'  cum  privilegio  Gregor.  XIII.'] 

2  [Ibid.,  and  compare  Twysden's  Vindication,  pp.  63,  64.] 

3  [See  Bramhall's  '  Schism  Guarded/  Part  i.  Disc.  iv.  ;  Works, 
Vol.  n.  p.  419.] 

4  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  in.  c.  2;  in  Disput.  Tom.  i.  p.  193,  B; 
ed.  Colon.  1628.] 


CHAP.  XII.]  POSSESSION.  168 

was  given  in  Gregory  the  First's  time ;  but  that  was 
nothing  like  an  oath  of  obedience,  and  was  only  an 
oath  of  abjuration  of  heresy,  not  imposed  but  taken 
freely ;  no  common  oath  of  Bishops,  nor  any  thing 
touching  the  royalties  of  St  Peter,  as  may  be  seen  in 
Gregory's  Epistles1. 

About  an  hundred  years  after,  in  the  time  of 
Gregory  the  Ninth,  they  extended2  the  subjects  of  the 
oath  as  well  as  the  matter ;  enlarging  it  from  Arch- 
bishops to  all  Prelates,  Bishops,  Abbots,  Priors ;  and 
now  they  cry  up  the  Canons  above  all  imperial  Laws. 

But  to  decide  this  point  of  swearing  allegiance  to 
the  Pope  (which  could  not  be  done  without  going  in 
person  to  Rome),  it  is  sufficient  that  by  all  our  laws, 
no  clergyman  could  go  to  Rome  without  the  King's 
licence,  and  that  by  an  ancient  Britannic  law,  "  If  any 
subject  enter  into  league  with  another"  Prince,  "pro- 
fessing fidelity  and  obedience  to  any  one"  besides  the 
King,  "  let  him  lose  his  head3." 

But  let  us  admit  that  the  Pope,  eleven  hundred 
years  after  Christ,  got  possession  of  the  English 
Church,  and  the  conscience  of  the  Bishops  by  investi- 
tures and  oaths ;  who  will  shew  us  that  he  had  it 
sooner  ?  Who  will  maintain  that  he  kept  it  quietly 
till  Henry  VIII.  ? 

This  last  point  will  be  clear,  by  examining  our       II. 
laws,   the  second  topic  propounded  at  the  beginning 

1  [Lib.  x.  ep.  xxxi.  c.  31.  Indict,  v.  :    Cf.    Twysden's   Vindica- 
tion, p.  64  ;  and  Bramhall,  ubi  supra.] 

2  [Twysden,  p.  65.] 

3  Hector.  Boeth.    Hist.    Scot.   Lib.  xn.   [quoted   by   Bramhall, 
Vol.  II.  p.  422.] 

.     Jl— 2 


164  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XII. 

of  this  discourse.  For  if  his  possession  were  good, 
it  was  settled  in  law,  and  if  quiet,  the  laws  were 
not  made  to  oppose  it,  by  the  great  States  of  the 
kingdom. 

My  lord  Bramhall1  hath  produced  three  great 
laws>  as  sufficient  to  determine  this  controversy,  whe- 
ther the  King  or  the  Pope  be  Patron  of  the  English 
Church, — the  Assize  of  Clarendon,  the  Statute  of  Car- 
lisle, and  the  Statute  of  Provisors.  The  first  tells  us 
plainly,  that  '  the  election  of  an  Archbishop,  Bishop, 
Abbot,  or  Prior,  was  to  be  made  by  the  respective 
dignitaries  upon  the  King's  calling  them  together  to 
that  purpose,  and  with  the  King's  consent.  And 
there  the  person  elected  was  presently  to  do  homage 
to  the  King  as  to  his  liege  lord2.' 

And  that  this  method  was  exclusive  of  the  Pope. 
,  the  Statute  of  Carlisle3  is  very  distinct :  "  The  King  is 

of  Carlisle. 

the  founder  of  all  Bishoprics,  and  ought  to  have  the 
custody  of  them  in  the  vacancies,  and  the  right  of 
patronage  to  present  to  them";  and  that  "the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  usurping  the  right  of  patronage,  giveth 
them  to  aliens";  that  this  "tendeth  to  the  annullation 
of  the  state  of  holy  Church,  to  the  disinheriting  of 
Kings,  and  the  destruction  of  the  realm  ":  "  this  is  an 
oppression,  and  shall  not  be  suffered." 
3.  statute  The  Statute  of  Provisors,  25°  Edward  III.,  affirms, 

of  Provi- 
sors.         that  "  elections  were  first  granted  by  the  King's  pro- 
genitors, upon   condition  to   demand   licence   of  the 
King  to  choose,  and  after  the  election  to  have  the 

1  [Schism  Disarmed,  Part  i.  Disc.  iv.  Vol.  ir.  p.  407.] 

2  [Mat.  Paris,  Hist.  Major.  A.D.  1164,  p.  101.] 
*  [35°  Edw.  I.  c.  4.  $  3.] 


CIIAI-.  XII.]  POSSESSION.  165 

royal  assent ;... which  conditions  not  being  kept,  the 
thing  ought  by  reason  to  resort  to  his  first  nature." 
And  therefore  they  conclude,  that  "in  case  reserva- 
tion, collation,  or  provision,  be  made  by  the  Court  of 
Home,  of  any  Archbishopric,  &c — the  King  and  his 
heirs  shall  have  the  collations  for  the  same  time... 
such  as  his  progenitors  had  before  the  free  elections 
Avere  granted1." 

And  they  tell  the  King  plainly,  that  "  the  right  of 
the  Crown,  and  the  law  of  the  land  is  such,"  that  the 
King  "  is  bound  to  make  remedies  and  laws  against 
such  mischiefs2."  And  they  acknowledge  "  that  he 
is  advowee  paramount  immediate  of  all  churches,  pre- 
bends, and  other  benefices,  which  are  of  the  advowry 
of  holy  Church  :"  i.  e.  sovereign  Patron  of  it. 

My  Lord  Coke  niore  abundantly  adds  the  resolu- 
tions and  decrees  of  the  law,  to  confirm  us  in  the 
point.  In  the  time  of  William  I.,  "  it  is  agreed  that 
no  man  can  make  any  appropriation  of  any  church 
having  cure  of  souls,  but  he  that  hath  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction ;  but  William  I.  did  make  such  appropria- 
tions of  himself,  without  any  other3.'1 

"  Edward  I.  presented  his  clerk,  who  was  refused 
by  the  Archbishop,  for  that  the  Pope  by  way  of  pro- 
vision had  conferred  it  on  another.  The  King  brought 
his  Quare  non  admisit,  the  Archbishop  pleaded  that 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  long  time  before  provided  to 
the  same  church  as  one  having  supreme  authority, 
and  that  he  durst  not,  nor  had  power  to  put  him  out, 

i  [25°  Edw.  III.  Stat.  vi.  §  31  2  [Ibid.  $  2.] 

3  7  Edw.  III.  Tit.  'Quare  Impedit,'  19 ;  [Coke,  Caudrey's  Case  ; 
Reports,  Part  v.  fol.  10,  b.] 


166  POSSESSION.  [CHAI-.  XII. 

which  was  by  the  Pope's  bull  in  possession;  for  which, 
...by  judgment  of  the  common  law,  the  lands  of  his 
whole  Bishopric  were  seized  into  the  King's  hands, 
and  lost  during  his  life1."  And  my  lord  Coke's  note2 
upon  it  is,  that  this  judgment  was  before  any  statute 
was  made  in  that  case. 

In  the  reign  of  Edward  III.,  "  it  is  often  resolved 
that  all  the  Bishoprics  within  England  were  founded 
by  the  King's  progenitors,  and  therefore  the  advow- 
sons  of  them  all  belong  to  the  King,  and  at  the  first 
they  were  donative ;  and  that  if  an  incumbent  of  any 
church  die,  if  the  patron  present  not  within  six  months, 
the  Bishop  of  that  diocese  ought  to  collate... if  he  be 
negligent  by  the  space  of  six  months,  the  Metropo- 
litan of  that  diocese  shall  confer  one  to  that  church ;" 
'  and  lastly,  by  the  common  law  the  lapse  is  to  the 
King,  as  to  the  supreme  within  his  own  kingdom,  and 
not  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome3.' 

This  King  presented  to  a  benefice,  his  presentee 
was  disturbed  by  one  that  had  obtained  Bulls  from 
Rome,  for  which  offence  he  was  condemned  to  per- 
petual imprisonment4. 

It  is  no  small  spice  of  the  King's  ecclesiastical 
patronage,  that  we  find  the  King  made  Canons  secular 
to  be  regular5 ;  and  that  he  made  the  Prior  and  Con- 
vent of  Westminster  a  distinct  corporation  from  the 
Abbot6. 

But  more  full  is  the  case  of  Abbot  Morris7,  who 

1  [Coke's  Reports,  ubi  supra,  fol.  12,  b.]  2  [Ibid.] 

a  [Coke,  ubi  supra,  fol.  14,  b.]  -  4  [Fol.  15,  a. J 

5  [Fol.  16,  b.]  6  [Fol.  17,  a.] 
7  [Fol.  16,  b.] 


''IIAI-.  XII.  |  POSSESSION.  167 

s(.-nt  to  Rome  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Pope;  who  by 
his  bull  slighted  the  eleetion  of  Morris,  but  gave  him 
the  Abbey,  of  his  spiritual  grace,  and  at  the  request 
(as  lie  feigned)  of  the  King  of  England.  This  Bull 
was  read  and  considered  of  in  Council,  that  is,  before 
all  the  Judges  of  England ;  and  it  was  resolved  by 
them  all,  that  this  Bull  was  against  the  laws  of  Eng- 
land, and  that  the  Abbot  for  obtaining  the  same  was 
fallen  into  the  King's  mercy, — whereupon  all  his  pos- 
sessions were  seized  into  the  King's  hands. 

In  the  reign  of  Richard  II.,  one  sued  a  provision 
in  the  Court  of  Home  against  an  incumbent,  recovered 
the  church,  brought  an  action  of  account  for  obla- 
tions, &c. ;  but  the  whole  Court  was  of  opinion  against 
the  plaintiff,  and  thereupon  he  became  nonsuit1.  See 
statute  16°  Richard  II.,  c.  5,  against  all  papal  usurpa- 
tions, and  this  in  particular ;  the  pain  is  a  Prcemunire. 

In  Henry  the  Fourth's  reign,  "  the  Judges  say  that 
the  statutes  which  restrain  the  Pope's  provisions  to 
the  benefices  of  the  advowsons  of  spiritual  men  were 
made,  for  that  the  spiritualty  durst  not  in  their  just 
cause  say  against  the  Pope's  provisions  ;  so  as  those 
statutes  were  made,  but  in  affirmance  of  the  common 
laws2." 

Now  what  remains  to  be  pleaded  in  behalf  of  the 
Pope's  patronage  of  our  Church,  at  least  as  to  his 
possession  of  it,  against  so  many  plain  and  great  evi- 
dences, both  of  law  and  deed  '? 

All  pretences  touching  the  Pope's  giving  the  Pall 
are  more  than  anticipated  ;  for  it  is  not  to  be  denied, 

i  [Coke,  ubi  supra,  fol.  20,  b.]  -  [Ibid.  fol.  23,  a.] 


168  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XII. 

but  that  was  not  held  necessary,  either  to  the  conse- 
cration, confirmation,  or  investiture  of  the  very  Arch- 
bishop before  Anselm's  time  :  yea  it  is  manifest  that 
Lanfranc,  Anselm,  and  Ralph,  did  dedicate  churches, 
consecrate  Bishops  and  Abbots,  and  were  called  Arch- 
bishops, while  they  had  no  pall,  as  Twysden  proves 
out  of  Eadmer1. 

We  never  read  that  either  Laurentius  or  Mellitus 
received  the  pall  from  Rome,  who  no  doubt  were  as 
lawful  Archbishops  as  Austin.  Girald2  and  Hoveden3 
both  give  us  an  account  that  Samson  of  St  David's 
had  a  pall,  but  do  not  say  from  Rome ;  though  in  the 
time  of  infection  he  carried  it  away  with  him.  After 
Paulinus  there  are  five  in  the  catalogue  of  York4 
expressly  said  to  have  wanted  it  (and  Wilfrid  was  one 
of  them),  yet  are  reputed  both  Archbishops  and 
Saints ;  and  of  others  in  that  series,  it  is  not  easy  to 
prove  they  ever  used  it,  nor  Adilbaldus,  till  the  fourth 
year  after  his  investiture.  And  Gregory  the  Great 
saith5,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  given  nisi  fortiter  postu- 
lanti.  What  this  honorary  was  anciently  seems  uncer- 
tain ;  but  it  is  most  certain,  it  could  not  evacuate  the 
King's  legal  and  natural  patronage  of  our  Church,  or 
discharge  the  Bishops  from  their  dependence  on,  and 
allegiance  to,  his  Crown. 

It  is  true  indeed,  when  Pope  Nicolaus  could  not 
deny  it,  he  was  graciously  pleased  to  grant  this 

1  [See  Twysden's  Vindication,  pp.  64,  65  ;  new  edition.] 

2  [Girald.  Cambrensis,  Itiner.  Lib.  n.  c.  i.  p.  855.] 
,3  [R.  de  Hoveden,  Annal.,  A.I>.  1199,  p.  798.] 

4  [See  authorities  for  these   facts  in  Twysden,  Hist.  Vind.  pp. 
60,61.] 

5  [Epist.  Lib.  vn.  cp.  5?  Indict.  I.] 


CHAP.  XII.]  POSSESSION.  169 

patronage  to  Edward  the  Confessor '  :  "  Vobis  et  pos- 
teris  vestris  reyibm  committimus  advocationem,'  etc.  'We 
commit  the  advowson  of  all  the  churches  of  England 
to  you  and  your  successors,  Kings  of  England.'  It 
might  have  been  replied,  '  Nicolaus  Papa  hoc  domino 
meo  privilegium,  quod  ex  paterno  jure  susceperat,  prce- 
bnit,'  as  the  Emperor's  advocate2  said. 

This  is  too  mean  as  well  as  too  remote  a  spring  of 
our  kingly  power  in  the  Church  of  England,  though  it 
might,  ad  hominem,  sufficiently  supersede  (one  would 
think)  all  papal  practices  against  so  plain  and  full  a 
grant.  If  any  thing  passed  by  it,  certainly  it  must  be 
that  very  power  of  advowson,  that  the  Popes  after- 
wards so  much  pretended,  and  our  laws  (mentioned) 
were  made  on  purpose  to  oppose  them  in. 

We  see  no  reason,  therefore,  against  the  statute 
of  Henry  VIII.  so  agreeable  to  the  ancient  rights  and 
laws  of  this  realm :  '  Be  it  enacted,  that  no  person 
shall  be  presented,  nominated,  or  commended  to  the 
Pope,  to  or  for  the  dignity  of  an  Archbishop  or  Bishop 
within  this  realm,  nor  shall  send  or  procure  there  for 
any  manner  of  bulls,  briefs,  palls,  or  other  things 
requisite  for  an  Archbishop  or  Bishop.'...' All  such 
(viz.  applications  and  instruments)  shall  utterly  cease, 
and  no  longer  be  used  within  this  realm ;'  and  such  as 
do  '  contrary  to  this  Act,  shall  run  into  the  dangers, 
pains,  and  penalties  of  the  statute  of  the  Provision 
and  Prcemunire3.' 

1  [Apud  Ailrud.  de  Vita  Edw.  Confessor,  col.  388,  1.  53 ;  inter 
Srriptores  x.J 

3  Baron.  Toui.  xi.  ad  an.  105JJ,  xxiu. 
a  25°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  20,  [$  2,  6.] 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

OF  PETER-PENCE,   AND   OTHER   MONEYS 
FORMERLY  PAID  TO  THE  POPE. 


UPON  complaint  by  Parliament,  in  Henry  the 
Eighth's  reign,  of  intolerable  exactions  of  great 
sums  of  money  by  the  Pope,  as  well  in  pensions, 
censes,  Peter-pence,  procurations,  &c.,  and  for  infinite 
sorts  of  bulls,  &c.,  otherwise  than  by  the  laws  and 
customs  of  the  realm  should  be  permitted  ; — it  was 
enacted1,  that  '  no  person  should  thenceforth  pay  any 
such  pensions,  Peter-pence,  &c.,  but  that  all  such  pay- 
ments should  thenceforth  clearly  surcease,  and  never 
more  be  levied,  .taken,  or  paid,' — and  all  annates  or 
first-fruits,  and  tenths,  of  Archbishops  and  Bishops 
were  taken  away,  and  forbidden  to  be  paid  to  the 
Pope,  the  year  before2. 

Our  payments  to  the  Court  of  llome  seem  to  have 
been  of  four  sorts,  Peter-pence,  first-fruits  and  tenths, 
casual  (for  palls,  bulls,  &c.)  and  extraordinary  taxa- 
tions. Briefly  of  each  : — 

I.  For  Peter-pence  (the  only  ancient  payment), 
it  was  at  first  given  and  received  as  an  alms — eleemo- 
syna  beati  Petri,  saith  Paschalis  II.3 — perhaps  rendered 
out  of  gratitude  and  reverence  to  the  See  of  Home, 

'  25°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  21,  [§  1.]  *  23°  Hen.  VIII.  c.  20. 

3  Epist.  Henrico  I.  apud  Eadmcr,  p.  113, 1.  27.  [On  the  subject 
of  payments  to  the  Papacy,  see  Twysden's  Hist.  Vind.  (pp.  94,  et 
seqq.),  from  which  this  chapter  was  mainly  derived.] 


CIIAV.  XIII.]  POSSESSION.  171 

to  which  England  was  no  doubt  frequently  obliged, 
for  their  care  and  counsel  and  other  assistances :  and 
by  continuance  this  alms  and  gratitude  obtained  the 
name  of  rent,  and  was  metaphorically  called  some- 
times tributum1,  but  never  anciently  understood  to 
acknowledge  the  Pope  as  superior  lord  of  a  lay-fee. 

But  when  the  Pope  changed  advice  into  precept, 
and  counsel  into  law  and  empire,  and  required  addi- 
tions, with  other  grievous  exactions,  unto  his  Peter- 
pence,  it  was  a  proper  time  to  be  better  advised  of 
ourselves,  and  not  to  encourage  such  a  wild  usurpation 
with  the  continuance  of  our  alms  or  gratitude. 

This  alms  was  first  given  by  a  Saxon  king,  but  by 
whom  it  is  not  agreed ;  but  that  there  was  no  other 
payment  besides  this  made  to  Rome  before  the  year 
12452,  appears  for  that,  though  there  was  much  com- 
plaint and  controversy  about  our  payments,  we  find 
the  omission  of  no  payment  instanced  in,  but  of  that 
duty  only ;  neither  do  the  body  of  our  kingdom  in 
their  remonstrance3  to  Innocent  IV.,  1246,  mention 
any  other  as  claimed  from  hence  to  Rome. 

Yet  this  payment,  as  it  was  not  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  as  it  was  at  first  but  an  alms ;  so  it  was  not 
continued  without  some  interruptions4,  when  Rome 
had  given  arguments  of  sufficient  provocation,  both  in 
the  times  of  William  the  First,  and  Henry  his  son, 
and  Henry  the  Second.  This  latter,  during  the  dis- 
pute with  Becket  and  Alexander  III.,  commanded  the 

1  Vid.  Twysden,  [p.  95.] 

2  [Vid.  Mat.  Paris,  Hist.  Major,  A.D.  1245,  p.  667,  1.  36.] 

3  [Apud  Mat.  Paris,  p.  698,  I.  51,  etc.] 

4  [Twysden,  p.  95.] 


172  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XIII. 

sheriffs  through  England,  that  Peter-pence  should  be 
gathered  and  kept,  quousque  inde  dominus  Rex  volunta- 
tem  stiam  prceceperit1. 

Historians  observe  that  Edward  III.  during  the 
French  war  gave  command,  that  no  Peter -pence 
should  be  gathered  or  paid  to  Rome 2 ;  and  the  re- 
straint continued  all  that  Prince's  time ;  for  his  suc- 
cessor Eichard  II.,  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign, 
caused  John  Wickliff  to  consider  the  point, — who 
concludes3,  those  payments  being  no  other  than  alms, 
the  kingdom  was  not  obliged  to  continue  them  longer 
than  it  stood  with  its  convenience,  and  not  to  its 
detriment  or  ruin, — according  to  the  rule  in  divinity, 
extra  casus  necessitatis  et  superfluitatis  eleemosyna  non 
est  in  prcecepto. 

Indeed,  in  the  Parliament  held  the  same  year,  the 
question  was  made,  and  a  petition4  preferred  (which 
surely  was  some  kind  of  disturbance  of  the  payment) 
against  them,  with  no  effect: — the  King  restored  them, 
anfl  the  payment  of  them  continued  till  Henry  VIII. 

II.  So  much  for  Peter -pence  ; — for  the  other 
payments,  viz.  First-fruits  and  Tenths,  and  the  casual 
payments  for  Bulls,  &c.,  they  so  evidently  depend  on 
the  Pope's  supremacy  for  legislation,  jurisdiction,  and 
dispensation,  that  they  are  justly  denied  with  it. 
However,  we  shall  briefly  examine  the  rise  and  the 
possession  of  them. 

For  the  Annates  and  Tenths,  which  the  Pope  re- 
ceived from  our  Archbishops  and  Bishops,  the  his- 

1  [Mat.  Paris,  A.D.  1164,  p.  103,  1.  45.] 

2  Stow's  Chronicle,  A.D.  1365,  p.  266,  [ed.  Loud.  1614. J 

»  [Twysden,  p.  96.]  *  [Rot.  Parl.  1°  Ric.  II.  $  84.] 


CHAP.  XIII.]  POSSESSION.  173 

torians  agree,  that  England  of  all  nations  never  sub- 
mitted to  the  full  extent  of  the  papal  commands  or 
expectations;  which  no  doubt  was  occasioned  by  the 
good  laws  made  here  against  them1. 

There  is  difference  amongst  writers  in  whose  time 
the  First-fruits  began  to  be  taken.  Theodoricus  a  Niem 
saith2,  Boniface  IX.,  about  the  tenth  year  of  his  go- 
vernment3, was  the  first  that  reserved  them ;  with 
whom  Platina4  agrees,  and  Polydore  Vergil5,  and 
many  others  (as  Twysden6  notes)  ;  and  Walsingham7 
reduces  them  but  to  1316. 

But  the  question  is,  how  long  the  Pope  quietly 
enjoyed  them  ?  The  kingdom  was  so  intolerably  bur- 
thened  with  papal  taxes  before  (of  which  we  shall 
speak  hereafter),  and  these  First-fruits  and  Tenths 
being  a  remembrance  of  those  extraordinary  taxes, 
and  a  way  devised  to  settle  and  continue  them  upon 
us,  they  were  presently  felt  and  complained  of.  The 
Parliament  complained8  in  general  of  such  oppres- 
sions, 25°  Edward  III.  A.  D.  1351 ;  and  again  more  par- 
ticularly, among  other  things  of  First-fruits,  in  the 
fiftieth  of  Edward  the  Third,  and  desire  his  Majesty 
'  no  collector  of  the  Pope  may  reside  in  England9.' 

1  [Twysden,  pp.  99,  100.] 

2  [De  Schismate  Universal!,  Lib.  n.  c.  27 ;  ed.  Argent.  1609.] 

3  [i.e.  A.D.  1399.] 

*  De  Vitis  Pontif.  in  Bonif.  IX.  [p.  527  ;  ed.  1664.] 

s  De  Rerum  Inventoribus,  Lib.  vm.  c.  2,  [p.  463  ;  ed.  1606.] 

6  [pp.  106,  107.] 

7  [Hist.   Angl.  AD.  1316,  p.  108,  1.  42;  inter  Angl.  Script,  ed. 
Camden.] 

8  [Rot.  Parl.  25°  Edw.  III.  Octav.  Purif.  §  13.] 

9  Rot.  Parl.  50°  Edw.  III.  ^  105,  106. 


1 74  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XIII. 

The  King  not  complying,  they  again  instance  the 
year  following,  that  •  the  Pope's  collector  was  as  very 
an  enemy  to  this  state  as  the  French  themselves ' ; 
that  he  annually  sent  away  twenty  thousand  marks, 
and  sometimes  twenty  thousand  pounds ;  and  that  he 
now  raised  for  the  Pope  the  first-fruits  of  all  dignities. 
— which  in  the  very  beginning  ought  to  be  crushed1. 

Yet  they  prevailed  not  to  their  minds ;  and  in  the 
next  Parliament2  the  Commons  preferred  three  peti- 
tions ;  first,  touching  the  payment  of  First-fruits,  not 
used  in  the  realm  before  these  times ;  secondly,  re- 
servation of  benefices ;  thirdly,  bestowing  them  on 
aliens,  &c. — praying  remedy ;  as  also  that  the  peti- 
tions of  the  two  last  Parliaments  might  be  considered, 
and  convenient  remedies  ordained.  The  King  here- 
upon refers  the  matters  for  remedy  to  his  grand  or 
Privy  Council3. 

But  neither  yet  was  full  satisfaction  obtained  (as 
appears),  for  that  the  Commons  renewed  in  effect  the 
same  suits4  in  the  third  and  fifth  of  Richard  II.,  the 
inconveniences  still  continuing  :  after  which  the  next 
Parliament  obtained  the  statute  of  Prcemunire*,  which 
(as  Polydore  Vergil6  observes)  was  a  confining  the 
papal  authority  within  the  ocean.  To  which  law  three 
years  after  some  additions  were  made,  and  none  of 
these  laws  were  repealed  by  Queen  Mary7. 

i  Rot.  Parl.  51°  Edw.  III.  §$  78,  79. 

*  Rot.  Parl.  1°  Ric.  II.  §§  66,  67,  6«. 

3  [See  Twysden,  pp.  108,  109.] 

4  Rot.    Parl.    3°  Ric.  II.  §  57 ;   [5°  Ric.    II.    in  crastina    Ani- 
marum,  $§  90,  91.]  5  13°  Ric.  II.  Stat.  n.  c.  2  &  3. 

c  [Angl.  Hist.  Lib.  xx.  p.  417,  1.  32,  etc.  ;  ed.  Basil,  1.170.] 

•  16°  Ric.  II.  c.  5  ;  [see  Twysden,  p.  110.] 


CHAP.  XIII.]  POSSESSION.  175 

To  say  the  Bishops  were  pressed  by  the  laity  to 
pass  that  last  Act,  is  so  much  otherwise,  as  that  it  is 
enrolled  (as  Twysden1  observes)  on  the  desire  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  Neither  would  the  Pope 
tolerate  (as  one2  insinuates)  any  thing  so  exceedingly 
prejudicial  to  him,  upon  any  reasonable  pretence 
whatsoever. 

In  the  same  Parliament,  the  Commons  petition 
that  '  the  Pope's  collector  may  have  forty  days  for  his 
removal  out  of  the  kingdom3 :'  the  King  considers. 

But  in  the  sixth  of  Henry  IV.,  upon  grievous 
complaints  made  by  the  Commons  to  the  King,  '  of 
the  horrible  mischiefs  and  damnable  customs  which 
were  then  introduced  of  new  in  the  Court  of  Rome, 
that  none  could  have  provision  for  an  Archbishopric 
or  Bishopric,  until  he  had  compounded  with  the 
Pope's  chamber,  to  pay  great  and  excessive  sums  of 
money,  as  well  for  the  First-fruits  as  other  lesser 
fees — it  was  enacted,  that  whosoever  should  pay  such 
sums  should  forfeit  all  they  had4.'  This  statute  was 
made  about  an  hundred  years  before  Henry  VIIL, — 
an  inconsiderable  time  for  so  considerable  a  pre- 
scription. 

III.     We  have  noted  that  the  clergy  of  England  pa  ^^ 

were  not  free  from  Roman  taxations  before  the  pay-  extraordi- 
nary. 

ment  of  Annates  and  Tenths,  as  they  were  afterwards 

1  [p.  Ill,  the  authority  being  the  Rolls  of  Parl.  16°  Ric.  II. 
$  20,  in  fine.] 

2  [Persons,  in  his  Answer  to  Coke's  Reports,  p.  335.] 

s  [See  the   '  Rolls,'  13°  Ric.  II.  §  43.      The  king's  answer  is 
equivalent  to  a  refusal ;  '  le  roy  s'avisera.'] 

•»  6°  Henr.  IV.  c.  1;  [see  Coke's  'Caudrey's  Case,'  fol.  23,  b.] 


176  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XIII. 

stated :  for  there  were  occasional  charges  exacted 
from  us  by  the  Pope,  which  afterwards  terminated  in 
those  constant  payments,  as  before  was  intimated. 

The  first  extraordinary  contribution  raised  by 
allowance  for  the  Pope's  use  in  this  kingdom,  Twys- 
den  observes  to  have  been  A.  D.  1183  (far  enough  off 
from  the  time  of  St  Austin) ;  when  Lucius  III.  (at 
odds  with  the  citizens  of  Rome)  sent  to  Henry  II., 
'  postulans  auxilium  of  him  and  his  clergy1.'  Where- 
upon two  things  considerable  are  observed,  (1)  the 
King,  in'  this  point  concerning  the  Pope,  consulted 
his  own  clergy,  and  followed  their  advice ; — (2)  the 
great  care  the  clergy  took  to  avoid  ill  precedents, — 
for  they  advised  the  King  that  he  would  receive  the 
moneys  as  given  by  them  to  him,  and  not  to  the  Pope, 
leaving  the  King  to  dispose  it  as  he  thought  fit2. 

This  wariness  being  perceived,  the  Pope  did  not 
suddenly  attempt  the  like  again.  We  do  not  find  any 
considerable  sum  raised  from  the  body  of  the  clergy 
for  the  support  of  the  papal  designs,  till  Gregory  IX. 
demanded  a  tenth  of  all  the  moveables  both  of  them 
and  the  laity,  A.D.  12293.  The  temporal  Lords  re- 
fused, and  the  clergy  unwillingly  were  induced  to  the 
contribution, — for  it  was  no  other. 

The  Pope  ventured  no  more  upon  the  laity,  but 
eleven  years  after4  he  demanded  of  the  clergy  a  fifth 
part  of  their  goods ;  and  after  many  contests  and 
strugglings,  and  notwithstanding  all  the  arguments5 

1  R.  de  Hoveden,  A.D.  1183,  [p.  622,  1.  17,  etc.] 

2  [See  Twysden,  pp.  99,  100.] 

3  [Mat.  Paris,  Hist.  Major,  pp.  301,  362.J 

•*  [Ibid.  A.D.  1240,  p.  526,  1.  20.]          5  [Mat.  Paris,  p.  534.] 


.  XIII.]  POSSESSION.  177 

of  the  poor  clergy,  by  the  King's  and  Archbishop's 
means,  they  were  forced  to  pay  it. 

But  neither  that  reluctancy,  nor  the  remonstrance 
of  the  kingdom  at  the  Council  of  Lyons1,  1245,  nor 
that  to  the  Pope  himself  the  year  following,  could 
prevail  then  to  change  the  shoulder  or  the  method  of 
oppression :  for  Innocent  IV.,  1246,  invents  a  new2 
way,  by  charging  every  religious  house  with  finding 
of  soldiers  for  his  service  for  one  year, — which 
amounted  to  eleven  thousand  marks3  for  that  year; 
with  many  devices  for  his  advantage.  But  did  he  go 
on  more  quietly  than  he  began  ?  No  certainly : — see 
the  petition4  of  the  Commons  in  Parliament,  1376. 

The  two  Cardinals  Priests'  agents5  were  not  suf- 
fered to  provide  for  them  a  thousand  marks  a-year 
apiece ;  but  the  state  chased  them  out  of  the  king- 
dom, and  the  King  sent  through  every  county,  that 
none  henceforth  should  be  admitted  per  Bullam,  with- 
out the  special  licence  of  the  King6. 

And  a  while  after,  the  Parliament  held  20°  Ed- 
ward III.,  1346,  petition7  more  plainly,  and  mention 
the  matter  of  the  two  Cardinals,  as  an  intolerable 
grievance ;  in  which  the  King  gave  them  satisfaction. 

However,  the  usurpation  grows  against  all  opposi- 
tion ;  and  it  is  no  longer  a  tax  for  one  year  only,  as  at 

1  [Mat.  Paris,  p.  666,  1.  51,  etc.] 

2  [Ibid.  p.  701,  1.  66 ;  p.  707,  1.  30 ;  p.  708.] 

3  [Ibid.  p.  730,  1.  16.] 

*  Rot.  Parl.  50°  Edw.  III.  §  107 ;  [Twysden,  p.  102.] 
«  [Rot.  Parl.  17°  Edw.  III.  §  59  ;  Thorn.  Walsingham,  p.  161, 
1.  23.] 

6  [Hen.  de  Knyghton.  col.  2583,  1.  50.] 
'  Rot.  Par!.  20°  Edw.  III.  $  33,  §  35. 

12 


178  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XIII. 

first,  but  for  six  years  successively,  pretending  war 
with  infidels:  so  dealt  John  XXI.1,  A.D.  1277,  and 
Clement  V.12,  in  the  Council  of  Vienne,  1311. 

Exactions  of  this  kind  were  so  abominable,  that 
Martin  V.,  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  1418,  was 
constrained  to  make  that  remedy3,  '  Nullatenus  impo- 
nantur,'  &c. — upon  which  decree  a  supply  of  the  tenth 
being  twice  demanded,  viz.  1515  and  1518,  by  Leo  X. 
against  the  Turk,  the  English  clergy  denied  them 
both  times4. 

Thus  the  Papacy  by  little  and  little,  and  through 
great  opposition,  at  length  brought  the  taxes  to  that 
we  now  call  tenths ;  and  annates  proceeded  gradually, 
but  by  milder  measures,  to  a  like  settlement ;  yet  nei- 
ther continued  without  the  disturbances  before  men- 
tioned. 

IV.     There  is  nothing  remains  under  the  head  of 
4.        money,  but  the  casual  and  accidental  profits,  accruing 

Casual 

Payments,  by  Bulls  and  Licences,  and  lesser  ways  and  conditions 
of  advantage,  which  did  much  help  the  rest  to  drain 
us  of  our  wealth.  But  these  obtained  upon  private 
persons,  and  many  times  in  methods  not  cognizable 
by  law ;  neither  were  the  people  so  apt  to  complain 
in  such  cases,  because  they  had  something  (which 
they  unaccountably  valued)  for  their  money  :  and  the 
possession  of  a  false  opinion  in  the  vulgar  (as  jugglers 
and  cheats  may  equally  glory  in)  can  never  be  soberly 

1  [W.  Thorn,  col.  1926,  1.  29 ;  inter  Scriptores  x.] 

2  [Thorn.  Walsingham,  p.  99, 1.  14.] 

3  Concil.  Constant.  Sess.  XLIII.,  [apud.  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  xn. 
255.] 

*  [Herbert's  Life  of  Hen.  VIII.  pp.  57,  79;  ed.  1672.] 


CHAP.  XIII.  J  POSSESSION.  179 

interpreted  to  be  a  good  and  sufficient  title  to  the 
supremacy  of  the  Church  of  England ; — yet  it  is  not 
amiss  to  remember,  that  the  Pope's  messenger,  John 
de  Obizis,  for  acting  against  the  King's  laws  in  get- 
ting money  for  his  master,  was  cast  into  prison1. 

Neither  can  we  reasonably  imagine  but  that  much 
of  that  vast  sum2  was  gathered  by  those  ways,  which 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  the  Lords  and  Commons 
complain  of,  viz.  that  above  eighty  thousand  marks 
yearly  was  carried  hence  into  Italy. 

It  was  some  disturbance  of  such  kind  of  receipts, 
that  the  law3  forbids  '  any  such  Bulls  to  be  purchased 
for  the  time  to  come  upon  pain  of  a  Prcemunire  ;'  and 
that  it  was  decreed4  that '  the  Pope's  collector,  though 
he  have  a  Bull  for  the  purpose,  hath  no  jurisdiction 
within  this  realm.' 

And  if  the  ancient  law  of  the  realm  saith  that  the 
Pope  cannot  alter  the  laws  of  England,  that  law  con- 
demns his  raising  money  upon  the  people  in  any  kind, 
without  special  law  to  that  purpose ; — a  prerogative 
the  kings  of  England  themselves  do  not  claim.  There- 
fore that  standing  fundamental  law  of  England  always 
lay  in  bar  against,  and  was  a  continual,  real,  and  legal 
disturbance  of  the  Pope's  possession  of  power  to 
impose  taxes,  or  by  any  devices  to  collect  money 
from  the  English,  either  laity  or  clergy. 

1  [Spencer's    Life   of  Archbp.   Chichele,  p.  99;  Lond.  1783: 
Wilkins'  Concil.  Tom.  m.  p.  486.] 

2  [Mat.   Paris,  A.  D.  1246,  pp.  715—717 ;  Carte's  Hist,  of  Eng- 
land, Vol.  n.  p.  87.     On  the  authority  of  these  writers,  the  text 
has  been  corrected  from  'four  hundred   thousand  pounds,'   the 
sum  stated  by  Full  wood  or  his  printer.] 

3  Stat.  7°  Hen.  IV.  c.  6 ;  [see  Coke,  Reports,  Part  v.  fol.  24,  b.] 
*  1  Hen.  IV.  fol.  9 ;  [Coke,  Ibid,  fol.  22,  b.] 

12—2 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  CONCLUSION   OF  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 

PRESCRIPTION— IT  IS  ON  OUR  SIDE— NO 

FORCE  FOR  THE  POPE. 


WE  have  seen  what  the  argument  from  Prescrip- 
tion is  come  to, — how  far  short  of  nine  hundred 
years,  and  how  unsettled,  both  in  law  and  practice,  it 
ever  was,  both  as  to  jurisdiction  in  the  Pope's  court 
at  Rome  and  by  his  Legates  here, — and  as  to  legis- 
lation by  the  force  of  his  Canons,  and  his  dispensation 
by  faculties,  licences,  and  any  sort  of  bulls,  &c., — and 
as  to  his  patronage  of,  or  profits  from,  the  English 
Church. 

If  a  just  computation  were  made,  I  believe  the 
argument  from  Possession  would  really  appear  to  be 
on  our  side ;  our  Kings  having  enjoyed  and  flourished 
in  the  exercise  of  supremacy  over  us  ever  since  the  Act 
of  Henry  VIII.  extinguishing  the  Pope's  usurpation 
here,  with  far  more  quiet  and  less  interruption  than 
ever  the  Pope  did  for  so  long  a  time. 

Besides,  other  qualifications  of  our  King's  pos- 
session do  mightily  strengthen  the  plea  above  any 
thing  that  can  be  alleged  on  the  Pope's  behalf. 

(1)  Our  Kings  had  possession  from  the  beginning 
according  to  the  Canon1,  and  therefore  could  never 
be  lawfully  divested :  ancient  histories  are  evident  for 

1   [An  allusion  probably  to  the  sixth  Nicene  Canon,  Ta 

(0T)     KptlTf  ITO),     K .  T.  \ .  ] 


CHAP.  XIV.]  POSSESSION.  181 

us,  and  Baronius l  determines  well,  '  what  is  said  by  a 
modern  concerning  ancient  affairs,  without  the  autho- 
rity of  any  more  ancient,  is  contemned.' 

This  ancient  Possession  of  our  Kings  hath  ever 
been  continued  and  declared  and  confirmed  by  our 
laws,  and  the  consent  of  the  whole  kingdom  signified 
thereby :  and  these  laws  have  still  been  insisted  on, 
and  repeated,  when  there  hath  been  any  great  occa- 
sion, and  fit  opportunity  to  vindicate  our  ancient 
liberties.  But  the  Pope  could  never  obtain  any  legal 
settlement  of  his  power  here  before  Queen  Mary's 
reign ;  nor  by  her  neither  in  the  main  branches  of  it, 
though  indeed  she  courted  him  with  the  dignity  of  a 
great  name  and  a  verbal  title2. 

Indeed,  the  subject  of  the  question  being  a  spi- 
ritual right,  our  adversaries  themselves  agree,  that 
Possession  sufficient  to  prove  it  ought  to  begin  near 
Christ's  time ;  and  he  that  hath  begun  it  later  (as 
certainly  the  Pope  did),  unless  he  can  evidence  that 
he  was  driven  out  from  an  ancienter  possession  (as 
the  Pope  can  never  do),  is  not  to  be  styled  a  pos- 
sessor, but  an  usurper,  an  intruder,  an  invader,  diso- 
bedient, rebellious,  and  schismatical ;  as  no  doubt  by 
S.  W.'s  logic  the  Pope  is,  as  before  was  noted3. 

I  shall  conclude  with  the  grave  and  considerate 
concession  of  Father  Barnes  (noted  by  Dr  Stillingfleet4), 

1  Annal.  Tom.  i.  ad  an.  1,  xn. 

2  [See  Twysden's  Vindication,  p.  110.] 

3  [See  above,  p.  114.] 

<  [Vindication  of  Archbp.  Laud,  Vol.  n.  pp.  171,172.  The 
whole  of  Barnes's  *  Catholico-Romanus  Pacificus'  is  printed  in 
Brown's  Appendix  to  the  'Fasciculus  Rerum';  for  the  passage  in 
question,  see  p.  839.] 


182  POSSESSION.  [CHAP.  XIV. 

who,  after  his  thorough  study  of  the  point,  upon  clear 
conviction  determined  it  positively  for  us  in  these 
words : 

"  The  Britannic  Church  may  plead  the  Cyprian 
privilege,  that  it  was  subject  to  no  Patriarch ;  and 
although  this  privilege  was  taken  away  by  force  and 
tumult,  yet  being  restored  by  the  consent  of  the 
kingdom  in  Henry  the  Eighth's  time,  and  quietly 
enjoyed  since,  it  ought  to  be  retained  for  peace'  sake, 
without  prejudice  of  Catholicism,  and  the  brand  of 
schism ;" — by  which  he  grants  all  that  is  pertinent  to 
our  cause,  (1)  that  the  Pope  had  not  possession  here 
from  the  beginning,  nor  ought  to  have  had  :  (2)  that 
he  took  advantage,  bellorum  tumultibus  et  vi,  for  his 
usurpation :  (3)  that  our  ancient  Cyprian  privilege  was 
restored  by  Henry  the  Eighth,  totius  Regni  consensu, 
'with  the  consent  of  the  whole  kingdom':  (4)  that 
never  since  it  had  been  peaceably  prescribed  (pacifice 
prcescriptum),  or  quietly  enjoyed :  (5)  and  that  there- 
fore it  still  ought  to  be  retained,  sine  schismatis  ullius 
nota,  'without  the  brand  or  charge  of  schism,' — which 
is  the  only  thing  contended  for. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE   ARGUMENT   FROM   INFALLIBILITY   CON- 
SIDERED;—IN   ITS  CONSEQUENCE 
RETORTED. 


THE   two  last   arguments  for  proof  of  the  Pope's 
authority  are   general,   and    not   limited   to   the 
Church  of  England,  as  the  three  former  were ;  they 
arc  his  Infallibility,  and  his  Universal  Pastorship, — 
which  remain  to  be  examined. 

From  his  Infallibility  it  may  be  argued  thus  :  Whe-  Argument. 
ther  the  Pope  were  the  means  of  our  conversion,  or 
have  a  patriarchal  right  over  us,  or  have  had  pos- 
session of  the  government  of  the  English  Church 
heretofore  or  not,  if  he  be  really  and  absolutely  infal- 
lible, he  hath  thereby  a  right  to  govern  us ;  and  we 
are  bound  to  be  ruled  and  directed  by  him.  But  the 
Pope  is  really  and  absolutely  infallible.  Ergo,  etc. 

The  consequence  would  tempt  a  denial :  indeed,  Conse- 
quence. 

Infallibility  is  an  excellent  qualification  for  an  Uni- 
versal Rector,  but  are  not  qualification  and  com- 
mission two  things?  Hath  God  given  authority  to 
every  man  equal  to  his  parts,  to  his  natural,  acquired, 
or  infused  abilities?  If  not,  what  necessity  is  there 
that  he  hath  to  the  Pope  ?  If  all  power,  as  well  as 
all  wisdom,  is  from  God  (the  prime  Fountain  of  them 
both),  and  if  we  pretend  to  both,  need  we  evidence 
only  one  ? 

Indeed,  we  ought  to  be   guided   by  one  that  is 


184  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XV. 

infallible  (if  such  a  one  there  be) ;  but  the  necessity 
ariseth  from  prudence,  not  immediately  from  con- 
science ;  unless  by  some  other  way  of  authority  God 
hath  given  him  power  to  govern  us,  as  well  as  ability : 
otherwise  we  ought  to  submit  ourselves  to  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Pope,  as  a  good  and  wise  man,  or  as  a 
friend,  as  our  ancestors  did,  and  not  as  our  lord. 

The  true  question  is,  Whether  God  hath  given 
the  power  of  government  to  the  Pope,  and  directly 
appointed  him  to  be  the  Universal  Pastor  of  his 
Church  on  earth ;  so  that  the  controversy  will  bear 
us  down  to  the  last  Chapter,  whatever  can  be  said 
here.  And  Infallibility  is  such  a  medium,  as  infallibly 
runs  upon  that  solecism  of  argument,  obscurum  per 
obscurius ;  and  indeed,  if  there  be  any  inseparable 
connexion  betwixt  Infallibility  and  the  Universal  Pas- 
torship (as  is  pretended),  the  contrary  is  a  lawfuller 
way  of  concluding : — viz.  if  there  be  no  one  man 
appointed  to  govern  the  Church  as  Supreme  Pastor 
under  Christ,  then  there  is  no  necessity  that  any  one 
man  should  be  qualified  for  it,  with  this  wonderful 
grace  of  Infallibility.  But  it  doth  not  appear  that 
God  hath  invested  any  one  man  with  that  power ; 
therefore  not  with  that  grace. 

But  lest  this  great  Roman  argument  should  suffer 
too  much,  let  us  at  present  allow  the  consequence  ; 
but  then  we  must  expect  very  fair  evidence  of  the 
assumption,  viz.  that  the  Pope  is  indeed  infallible. 

I  am  aware  that  there  are  some  vexing  questions 
about  the  manner  and  subject  of  this  Infallibility  ;  but 
if  we  will  put  them  out  of  the  way,  then  the  evidence 
of  the  Pope's  or  Church  of  Rome's  Infallibility  breaks 


CHAP.  XV.]  INFALLIBILITY.  185 

out  from  three  of  the  greatest  topics  we  can  desire, 
Scripture,  Tradition,  and  Reason.  Let  them  be  heard 
in  their  order. 


SECTION  I. 

I.   ARGUMENT  FROM  SCRIPTURE   FOR  INFALLIBILITY, 
viz.  EXAMPLE— HIGH  PRIEST  OF  THE    JEWS- 
APOSTLES. 

TT7HETHER  it  be  an  excess  or  defect  of  charity 
»  *  in  me  I  know  not,  but  I  cannot  bring  myself  to 
believe  that  the  fiercest  bigot  of  popery  alive  can 
seriously  think  the  Pope  infallible,  in  the  popish  sense 
of  the  word ;  especially  that  the  Holy  Scriptures 
prove  it. 

I  know  that  some  fly  the  absurdity,  by  hiding  the 
Pope  in  the  Church :  but  if  the  Church  be  infallible, 
it  is  so  as  it  is  representative  in  general  Councils,  or 
diffusive  in  the  whole  body  of  Christians ;  and  then 
what  is  Infallibility  to  the  Church  of  Rome  more  than 
to  any  other  ?  And  how  shall  that  which  is  common 
to  all  give  power  to  one  over  all  ?  Or  what  is  it  to 
the  Pope,  above  another  Bishop  or  Patriarch  ? 

But  '  the  Pope  is  the  Head  and  Universal  Bishop 
as  he  is  Bishop  of  Rome.' 

That  is  begging  a  great  question  indeed,  for  the 
proof  of  the  Pope's  Infallibility  (which  his  Infallibility 
ought  to  prove),  and  to  prove  the  medium  by  the 
thing  in  question,  after  a  new  logic. 

Besides,  if  the  proper  seat  of  Infallibility  be  the 
Church,  in  either  of  the  senses  it  concerns  our  adver- 
saries to  solve  Divine  Providence ;  who  use  to  argue 


186  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XV. 

for  this  wonderful  gift  in  the  Church,  '  if  there  be  no 
Infallibility,  God  hath  not  sufficiently  provided  for  the 
safety  of  souls,  and  the  government  of  his  Church.' 
For  seeing  the  Church  diffusive  cannot  be  imagined 
to  govern  itself,  but  as  collected ;  and  seeing,  as  the 
Christian  world  is  now  circumstantiated,  it  is  next  to 
impossible  we  should  have  a  general  and  free  Coun- 
cil,— how  shall  this  so  necessary  infallible  grace  in  the 
Church  be  exerted,  upon  all  occasions,  for  the  ends 
aforesaid  ? 

It  is  therefore  most  consonant  to  the  Papal  inte- 
rest and  reason  to  lodge  this  infallible  gift  in  the 
Pope,  or  Court  of  Rome. 

However,  let  us  attend  their  arguments  for  the 

evidence  of  it,  either  in  the  Pope,  or  Court,  or  Church 

of  Rome,   in   any  acception ;  which  are   first  drawn 

from  Scripture,  both  examples  and  promises. 

1  I.     From    Scripture-examples   they   reason   thus : 

Argument 

from  EX-    '  the  High-priest  with  his  clergy  in  the  time  of  the 

am  pies. 

Law  were  infallible ;  therefore  the  Pope  and  his  clergy 
The  High  are  so  now.     The  High-priest  with  his  clergy  in  the 

"riest. 

time  of  the  Law  were  so,  as  appears  from  Deuter- 
onomy xvii.  8, — where  in  doubts  the  people  were 
bound  to  submit  and  stand  to  their  judgment,  which 
supposeth  them  infallible  in  it :'  as  T.  C.  argues l  with 
Archbishop  Laud. 

Answer.  Dr   Stillingfleet 2   with    others   hath   exposed   this 

argument  beyond  all  reply.  In  short,  the  conse- 
quence of  it  supposeth  what  is  to  be  proved  for  the 
proof  of  Infallibility,  viz.  that  the  Pope  is  High-priest 

1  [Labyrinth.  Cantuar.]  p.  97,  $  1. 

2  [Vindication,  Vol.  I.  pp,  380,  381.] 


CHAP.  XV.]  INFALLIBILITY.  187 

of  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  we  must  still  expect  an 
argument  for  the  Pope's  Headship,  if  this  must  be 
granted,  that  we  may  prove  him  infallible,  to  the  end 
we  may  prove  his  Headship.  Were  it  said  to  the 
Christian  Church,  when  any  controversy  of  faith  aris- 
eth,  '  Go  to  Rome,  and  there  inquire  the  judgment  of 
the  Bishop,  and  believe  his  determinations  to  be  infal- 
lible,' there  had  been  no  need  of  this  consequence ; 
but  seeing  we  read  no  such  thing,  the  consequence  is 
worth  nothing. 

Besides,  the  minor  affirming  the  infallibility  of  the  Minor. 
High-priest  from  that  law  of  appeal  in  Deuteronomy 
xvii.  8,  is  justly  questioned.  There  was  indeed  an 
obligation  on  the  Jews  to  submit  and  stand  to  the 
judgment  of  that  high  Court,  but  no  obligation  nor 
ground  to  believe  the  judgment  infallible.  The  same 
obligation  lies  upon  Christians,  in  all  judiciary  causes, 
especially  upon  the  last  appeal,  to  submit  in  our  prac- 
tices, though  not  in  our  judgment  or  conscience  to 
believe  what  is  determined  to  be  infallibly  true : — a 
violence  that  neither  the  whole  world  nor  a  man's  self 
can  sometimes  do  to  the  reason  of  a  man. 

The  text  is  so  plain  not  to  concern  matters  of 
doctrine,  to  be  decided  whether  true  or  false,  but 
matters  of  justice  to  be  determined,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  that  one  would  think  the  very  reading  of  it 
should  put  an  end  for  ever  to  this  debate  about  it. 
The  words  are,  "  If  there  arise  a  matter  too  hard  for 
thee  in  judgment,  between  blood  and  blood,  between 
plea  and  plea,  and  between  stroke  and  stroke,  being 
matters  of  controversy  within  thy  gates ;  then  shalt 
thou  arise  and  get  thee  up  into  the  place  which  the 


188  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XV. 

Lord  thy  God  shall  choose,"  &c.  Thus  God  estab- 
lished a  court  of  Appeal,  a  supreme  court  of  Judica- 
ture, to  which  the  last  application  was  to  be  made, 
both  in  case  of  injury  and  in  case  of  difficulty,  called 
the  great  Sanhedrim.  But  note,  here  is  no  direction 
for  address  to  this  court,  but  when  the  case  had  been 
first  heard  in  the  lower  courts,  held  in  the  gates  of 
the  cities :  therefore  the  law  concerned  not  the  mo- 
mentous controversies  in  religion,  which  never  came 
under  the  cognizance  of  those  inferior  courts. 

Therefore  it  is  not  said,  whosoever  doth  not  be- 
lieve the  judgment  given  to  be  true,  but  whosoever 
acts  contumaciously  in  opposition  to  it :  "  And  the 
man  that  will  do  presumptuously,  and  will  not  hearken, 
even  that  man  shall  die1." 

Besides,  God  still  supposeth  a  possibility  of  error 
in  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel2,  and.  chargeth 
the  priests  with  ignorance  and  forsaking  his  way,  fre- 
quently by  the  Prophets. 

But  alas !  where  was  the  Infallibility  of  the  High- 
priest,  &c.,  when  our  blessed  Saviour  was  condemned 
by  him,  and  by  this  very  court  of  the  Sanhedrim? 
And  when  '  Israel  had  been  for  a  long  season  without 
the  true  God,  without  a  teaching  priest,  and  without 
law3?' 
2.  II.  It  is  also  argued  from  that  example  of  the 

The  Apos- 
tles.          Apostles  under  the  New  Testament,  '  that  they  were 

assisted  with  an  infallible  spirit,  and  there  is  the  same 
Answer,     reason  for  the  Pope.'     But  this  is  to  dispose  God's 

1  Deut.  xvii.  12.  2  Levit.  iv.  13. 

3  2  Chron.  xv.  3 :    see    Dr   Stillingfleet,   [Vindication,   Vol.  I. 
p.  384.] 


CHAP.  XV.]  INFALLIBILITY.  189 

gifts  and  wisdom  by  our  own  reason.  The  Apostles' 
Infallibility,  attested  with  miracles,  was  necessary  to 
the  first  plantation  and  state  of  the  Church ;  and  it 
no  more  followeth,  that  therefore  the  succeeding 
Bishops  must  be  infallible  because  they  were  so,  than 
that  because  Moses  wrought  miracles  for  the  con- 
firmation of  the  Law,  therefore  the  Sanhedrim  should 
work  miracles  for  the  ordinary  government  of  Israel, 
according  to  the  Law. 

Besides,  what  reason  can  be  given  why  this  pri- 
vilege of  Infallibility  should  be  entailed  upon  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  more  than  other  Bishops,  who  suc- 
ceeded the  infallible  Apostles  as  well  as  the  Pope  ? 
What  ground  hath  he  to  claim  it  more  than  they? 
Or  if  they  have  all  an  interest  in  it,  what  becomes  of 
the  argument  that  the  Pope  is  the  Universal  Head  and 
Governor  of  the  Churh,  because  he  is  infallible  ? 


SECTION   H. 

ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  PROMISES  OF  INFALLIBILITY. 

OD  hath  promised  that  his  Church  shall  be  pre-       II. 
served,   which   promise   engageth   his  infallible  from  Pro- 
assistance  :  therefore  the  Church  by  that  assistance  is 
always  infallible.'     To  this  mighty  purpose  T.  C.  rea- 
sons1 with  Archbishop  Laud. 

'  God  will  certainly  and  infallibly  have  a  Church, 
therefore  that  Church  shall  not  only  be,  but  be  infal- 
lible in  all  her  decrees  de  fide'  Is  not  this  strong  Answer 

i  [Labyrinth.  Cantuar.  p.  99,  $  3.] 


190  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XV. 

reason  ?  God  is  infallible,  therefore  his  Church  is  so  ; 
a  Church  shall  continue,  therefore  it  shall  not  err. 

Pray  what  security  doth  the  promise  of  the 
Church's  perpetuity,  or  infallibility  as  to  fundamen- 
tals, give  to  any  single  person  or  particular  Church, 
that  they  shall  continue  in  the  Christian  faith,  more 
than  it  did  to  seven  Churches  in  Asia  ?  And  where 
are  they  now  ? 

The  argument  will  conclude  as  well :  God  hath 
promised  his  Church  shall  ever  exist  upon  earth  ; 
therefore  (1)  Christians  (of  which  the  Church  consists) 
shall  never  die,  as  well  as  never  fall  away — for  if  the 
promise  be  made  to  the  present  Church  in  the  Ro- 
manist's sense,  it  is  made  to  the  individuals  that  make 
the  Church — (2)  and  that  every  particular  Christian, 
as  well  as  every  particular  Church,  having  an  equal 
and  common  interest  in  the  promise  of  assistance,  is 
infallible. 

If  we  should  grant  the  Universal  Church  to  be 
infallible,  not  only  as  to  her  perpetuity  but  her  testi- 
mony,— which  the  argument  reacheth  not ;  yet  it 
rests  to  be  proved  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  then  that  the  Pope  is  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  the  same  sense  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  the  Catholic  Church,  and  that  in  the  same 
consideration  as  the  Catholic  Church  is  infallible. 

But  if  we  consider  the  particular  promises,  the 
argument  thence  is  so  wide  and  inconclusive,  that  one 
would  think  no  considerate  man  could  be  abused  by  it. 

These  promises  are  such  as  concern  the  Apostles 
and  Church  in  general ;  or  such  as  are  pretended  to 
dignify  St  Peter  in  special,  and  above  the  rest. 


CHAP.  XV.]  INFALLIBILITY.  191 

Such  as  concern  the  Apostles  and  the  Church  in  tJenerai  to 

Apostles. 

general  are  these  three  :  "  He  that  heareth  you  hear- 
eth  me1,"  &c.  True,  while  you  teach  me,  that  is  my 
doctrine.  "  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world2."  True,  while  you  are  faithful,  and 
teach  whatsoever  I  command.  "  The  Comforter,  the 
Holy  Ghost,  shall  abide  with  you  for  ever3."  True 
also,  while  you  love  me  and  keep  my  commandments : 
— as  the  condition  is  just  before  the  promise. 

Now  what  are  these  texts  to  the  Pope  or  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  special?  They  certainly  that 
plead  the  promise  should  not  neglect  the  duty ;  it 
•were  well  if  that  was  thought  on. 

The  Pope's  special  friends  insist  on  other  promises 
more  peculiarly  designed,  as  they  would  have  them,  St.  Peter, 
for  St  Peter's  prerogative.      They  are  these  : 

(1)     The  first  is  Matth.  xvi.  18  :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  Text  i. 
and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  Church  ;  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it." 

But  what  is  this  to  St  Peter's  Infallibility  ?  The  Answer. 
Church  shall  not  be  overthrown,  therefore  St  Peter  is 
infallible  :  what  is  this  to  the  Pope's  Infallibility?  The 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  the  Church, 
therefore  the  Pope  is  infallible.  Can  God  find  no 
other  way  to  preserve  the  Church  but  St  Peter's 
Infallibility  and  the  Pope's  Infallibility  ? 

Is  this  promise  made  to  secure  the  Church  under 
St  Peter  and  his  successors  absolutely  from  all  error  ? 
How  came  St  Peter  himself  to  fall  then,  by  denying 
his  master,  and  to  err  about  the  temporal  kingdom4 

1  Luke  x.  16.          2  Mat.  xxviii.  20.          3  John  xiv.  16. 
4  Acts  i.  6. 


1 92  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XV. 

of  Christ?  and  Popes  to  be  blasphemers,  heretical1, 
atheistical  ?  How  came  so  many  particular  Churches 
that  were  under  the  Apostolic  chair  (if  all  were  so  at 
first)  to  miscarry,  as  those  first  Churches  in  Asia  did  ? 

But  whatever  is  here  promised  to  St  Peter  is 
nothing  to  the  Pope,  unless  the  Pope  be  indeed  St 
Peter's  successor,  and  sit  in  his  chair, — the  great 
point  reserved  for  the  last  refuge,  and  shall  there  at 
large  be  examined. 

The  next  promise  is,  John  xxi.  16,  "  Peter,  feed 
my  sheep ; "  therefore  the  Pope  is  infallible.  But 
must  not  others  feed  Christ's  sheep,  and  are  they 
infallible  too?  It  is  acutely  said2,  that  Peter  was  to. 
feed  the  sheep  as  ordinary  pastor,  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles  as  extraordinary  ambassadors.  But  doth 
this  text  say  so,  or  any  other  text  ?  How  came  it  to 
pass  that  the  ordinary  pastor  should  be  greater  than 
the  extraordinary  ambassadors?  How  is  it  proved 
that  this  power  of  feeding  is  infallible  only  as  in 
St  Peter?  or  as  such  is  transmitted  to  St  Peter's 
successor  in  a  more  peculiar  manner  than  to  the  suc- 
cessors of  other  Apostles  ?  and  that  the  Pope  is  this 
successor  ?  This  must  be  considered  hereafter  ;  their 
proof  is  not  yet  ready. 

Another  is  Luke  xxii.  31  :  "  Simon,  Simon,  behold 
Satan  hath  desired  to  winnow  thee...but  I  have  prayed 
that  thy  faith  fail  not ;"  viz.  that  thou  perish  not  in 
apostacy,  not  that  thou  be  absolutely  secured  from 
error,  nor  thy  pretended  successors.  And  had  not 
others  the  prayer3  of  Christ  also,  even  all  that  should 

1  [See  above,  p.  92,  notes  2,  4.] 

2  [See  Stillingfleet's  Vindication,  n.  266,  267.]       3  John  xvii.  20. 


CHAP.  XV.]  INFALLIBILITY.  193 

believe  on  him  ?  In  a  word,  what  is  this  to  the  Pope 
that  Peter  should  not  utterly  miscarry  in  the  High- 
priest's  hall,  unless  it  signify  that  the  Pope  may  err 
grievously,  as  St  Peter  did,  though  he  hath  no  more 
the  security  of  not  failing  in  the  faith  than  every 
ordinary  Christian  hath. 

But  this  trifling  with  holy  Scripture  provokes  re- 
buke, and  deserves  no  answer. 

If  any  desire  further  satisfaction,  either  upon 
these  or  other  like  Scriptures  urged  for  the  Pope's 
or  the  Church's  Infallibility,  let  them  peruse  Dr  Stil- 
lingfleet1  in  defence  of  my  Lord  of  Canterbury,  and 
Mr  Pool's  Treatise2  written  on  purpose  upon  this 
subject. 

1  [See  particularly  Part  i.  c.  viii.  Part  11.  c.  vii.J 

2  [e.  g.    Matthew    Pool's  Treatise,    entitled    'The   Nullity    of 
the  Romish  Faith ;  or  a  Blow  at  the  Root  of  the  Romish  Church,' 

&c.  &c.] 


13 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

SECOND   ARGUMENT   FOR   INFALLIBILITY,   viz. 
TRADITION— CONCESSIONS— FOUR  PRO- 
POSITIONS—THREE ARGUMENTS- 
OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


rPHAT  the  difference  may  not  seem  wider  than 
JL  indeed  it  is,  we  shall  make  way  for  our  discussion 
of  this  argument  by  a  few  but  considerable  conces- 
sions. 

(1)  We   yield    that    tradition    truly   catholic   is 
apostolical.      Truly  catholic,  that  is,  in  all  the  three 
known  conditions l,  ab  omnibus,  semper,  et  ubique :  for 
we  cannot  imagine  that  any  thing  should  be  believed 
or  practised  by  all  learned  Christians  at  all  times  and 
in  all  places,  as  a  point  of  Christian  Religion,  that  was 
not  received  as  such  either  from  Christ  himself  or  his 
Apostles. 

(2)  We  grant  that  tradition  hath  been,  and  ever 
will  be,  both  useful  and  necessary  for  the  delivering 
down  to  the  faith  of  the  Church,  in  all  succeeding 
ages,  both  the  Canon  of  the   Scripture,  and  the  fun- 
damentals of  the  Christian  Religion.      The  necessity 
hereof  ariseth  from  the  distance  of  time  and  place, 
and  must  be  supposed,  upon  the  succession  of  gene- 
rations in  the  Church,  after  the  removal  of  the  first 

1  [The  rule   of  Vincent  of  Lerins,  in   his  '  Commonitoriian,' 
cap.  iii.] 


CHAP.  XVI. J  INFALLIBILITY.  195 

preachers    and    writers,    and    consequently    the    first 
deliverers  thereof. 

(3)  We  need  not  stick  to  agree  that  tradition  is 
infallible  (if  we  abuse  not  the  term  too  rigidly),  in 
conveying  and  preserving  the  substance  of  Religion ; 
which  I  was  much  inclined  to  believe  before,  and  am 
now  much  encouraged  to  express,  after  I  had  read 
the  learned  and  ingenious  book l  of  the  '  Several  Ways 
of  resolving  Faith.'     He  concludes2,  "that  the  neces- 
saries to  salvation  should  ever  fail  to  be  practically 
transmitted   from  generation  to   generation,  is  alike 
impossible,  as  that  multitudes  of  people  should  not  in 
every  age  be  truly  desirous  of  their  own  and  their 
posterity's  everlasting  happiness ;  seeing  it  is  a  thing 
both  so  easy  to  be  done,  and  so  necessary  to  salva- 
tion."   By  the  substance  of  Christian  Religion,  I  mean 
the  Credenda  and  the  Agenda,  or  as  he  doth  the  Creed, 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  the 
Two  Sacraments. 

(4)  We  may,  for  aught  I  see  to  the   contrary, 
gratify  the  author  of  Rushworth's3  Dialogues,  and  the 
abettors  of  that  late  new-found  tradition  of  the  present 

1  [This  treatise  was  published  in  1677  anonymously.  The  com- 
plete title  is  '  The  several  Ways  of  resolving  Faith  in  the  Roman  and 
Reformed  Churches,  with  the  Author's  impartial  thoughts  upon 
each  of  them,  and  his  own  opinion  at  length  shewn,  wherein  the 
Rule  of  Faith  consists ;  which  clears  upon  rational  grounds  the 
Church  of  England  from  criminal  schism,  and  lays  the  cause  of 
the  separation  upon  the  Roman.']  2  p.  129. 

3  [So  called  by  Archbp.  Tillotson  and  others.  The  title  of  the 
tract  is  '  The  Dialogues  of  William  Richworth ;  or  the  judgment  of 
common  sense  in  the  choice  of  Religion,'  8vo.  Paris,  1640.  The 
real  name  of  the  author  was  Thomas  White,  a  notorious  polemical 
writer.] 

13—2 


196  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XVI. 

Church  of  Rome.  For  every  Church  of  Christ,  as 
such,  hath  possession  of  the  substance  of  Christian 
Religion,  and  without  it  cannot  be  a  Church ;  and  I 
am  sure  by  this  concession  the  great  argument  for 
tradition  is  allowed,  and  we  are  so  far  agreed  in  a 
main  point. 

I  am  troubled  we  must  now  differ ;  but  our  pro- 
positions shall  be  such  as  none  that  have  weighed 
antiquity  can  well  doubt  of  them. 

We  affirm,  that  whatsoever  matter  of  faith  or 
practice  is  not  derived  from  the  first  hands  by  tradi- 
tion catholic,  as  explained  in  the  first  concession,  is 
not  necessary  to  salvation :  for  it  is  agreed,  if  it  were, 
it  would  have  been  preserved  by  tradition. 

But  it  is  against  all  sense  to  believe  that  tradition 
is  sufficient  to  secure  us  from  all  additions  to  the  first 
faith,  or  additions  and  alterations  in  ceremonies  and 
worship,  or  any  thing  that  is  not  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. And  herein,  indeed,  lies  the  controversy :  for  if 
midwives,  nurses,  parents,  and  tutors  have  (as  it  is 
said)  tradition  in  their  hands,  and  hold  themselves 
obliged  not  to  poison  little  babes  as  soon  as  they  can 
receive  instructions  accordingly,  and  tradition  could 
not  possibly  admit  or  deliver  any  thing  but  what  is 
necessary  to  salvation, — it  were  not  possible  for  any 
error  to  obtain  in  the  Church,  or  with  any  one  party, 
or  even  member  of  it,  but  truth  would  be  equally 
catholic  with  tradition.  And  then  charity  will  not 
suffer  us  to  believe  that  the  Jews,  that  kept  the  Law, 
should  be  guilty  of  any  vain  traditions,  contrary  to 
our  Saviour's  reproofs ;  or  that  there  should  be  any 
such  parties  as  Huguenots  and  Protestants  in  the 


CHAP.  XVL]  INFALLIBILITY.  197 

world  ;  or  such  various  sects  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
itself;  or  so  many  successive  additions  to  the  faith 
and  worship  of  that  Church,  as  none  may  have  the 
confidence  to  deny  have  happened. 

"  Vincentius  speaks  very  truly"  (saith  Rigaltius1) 
"  and  prudently,  if  nothing  were  delivered  by  our 
ancestors  but  what  they  had  from  the  Apostles ;  but 
under  the  pretence  of  our  ancestors,  silly  or  counter- 
feit things  may  by  fools  or  knaves  be  delivered  us  for 
apostolical  traditions :" — and  we  add,  by  zealously 
superstitious  men,  or  by  men  tempted  (as  is  evident 
they  were  about  the  time  of  Easter  and  rebaptization 
in  the  beginning)  to  pretend  tradition  to  defend  their 
opinions  when  put  to  it  in  controversy. 

It   further  follows,    that    the  Infallibility  of  the  Proposi- 
tion in. 

Pope,  or  Court  of  Rome,  or  Church,  in  matters  of 
faith,  is  no  necessary  point  of  faith ;  because  it  is  not 
delivered  down  to  us  as  such  by  lawful,  i.  e.  catholic, 
tradition  : — this  is  the  point. 

Now  here  we  justly  except  against  the  testimony 
of  the  present  oral  tradition  of  the  Roman  Church,  or 
tradition  reversed,  because  it  cannot  secure  us  against 
additions  to  the  faith.  It  is  no  evidence  that  tradi- 
tion was  always  the  same  in  that  point ;  it  cannot  bear 
against  all  authentic  history  to  the  contrary. 

That  Popes,  and  Councils,  and  Fathers,  and  the 
Church  too,  have  erred  in  their  belief  and  practice,  is 
past  all  doubt,  by  that  one  instance  of  the  Communion 
of  Infants  for  some  hundred  of  years  together ;  which 
is  otherwise  determined  by  the  Council  of  Trent2. 

1  Observ.  in  Cyprian,  p.  147 ;  [Cyprian.  Opp.  Paris.  1666.] 

2  [Sess.  xxi.  cap.  iv. ;  see  Bingham,  Book  xv.  chap.  iv.  sect,  vii.] 


198  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAI>.  XVI. 

Yea,  that  there  was  no  such  tradition  of  the 
Pope's  or  the  Church  of  Rome's  Infallibility  in  ancient 
times,  is  as  manifest  by  the  oppositions  betwixt  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  which  could  not  con- 
sist with  such  tradition  or  belief  of  it. 

And  for  the  Church  of  England,  had  she  owned 
such  tradition,  her  ancient  Bishops  would  not  have 
contended  with  and  rejected  the  Pope's  messenger, 
St  Austin,  and  his  propositions  together. 

Neither  can  any  considering  man  imagine  that 
the  tradition  of  the  Pope's  Infallibility  is  catholic,  or 
generally  received  and  believed  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  at  this  day1.  It  is  well  known  many  of  their 
eminent  men  renounce  it,  and  indeed  the  Pope  him- 
self doth  not  believe  it,  or  he  does  not  believe  that  all 
his  doctors  believe  it :  for  if  he  does  believe  both, 
why  does  he  not  make  use  of  his  talent,  and  put  an 
end  to  all  the  scandalous2  broils  and  ruptures  occa- 
sioned by  the  doctrinal  differences  and  disputes  among 
the  several  factions  of  his  Church,  and  have  peace 
within  his  own  borders  ? — But  this  admits  no  answer. 

It  is  said  by  the  Romanist  that  universal  traditions 
are  recorded  in  the  Fathers  of  every  succeeding  age ; 
and  it  is  reasonably  spoken.  It  behoves  him  as  to 

1  [Bossuet's  '  Defensio  Declarationis  Cleri  Gallicani'  is  a  suffi- 
cient proof  of  this  assertion.     Vid.  Lib.  vn.  capp.  21 — 28.     For 
numerous  facts  establishing  the  same  position,  see   Mr  Palmer's 
'  Treatise  on  the  Church/  Part  vn.  chap.  v.  sect,  i.] 

2  [When  Fullwood  wrote,  the  Jansenistic  controversy  was  raging 
throughout  the  whole  Roman  communion.     A  minute  account  of 
it  is  given  by  Mr  Palmer,  as  above,  Part  i.  chap.  xi.  Appendix  i. 
The  Thomists  were  in  like   manner  denouncing   the  Jesuits  as 
heretical.     See  Pascal,   Les  Provinciales,  pp.    47,  53.  ed.   Paris. 
1844.] 


CHAP.  XVI.]  INFALLIBILITY.  199 

the  present  point  to  shew  us  in  some  good  authors,  in 
every  age  since  the  Apostles,  this  tradition  for  Infal- 
libility ;  then  indeed  he  hath  done  something  which 
ought  to  be  done.  But  till  that  be  done  we  must 
adhere  that  there  is  no  such  ground  of  the  Pope's 
authority  over  us  as  his  Infallibility,  proved  by  Scrip- 
ture or  tradition. 

This  proof  I  think  was  never  yet  so  much  as  un- 
dertaken, and  may  be  expected — (Hoc  opus  est.)  It  is 
observed  by  Dr  Stillingfleet1,  that  there  is  but  one 
eminent  place  in  antiquity  produced  on  their  side  in 
the  behalf  of  traditions,  and  that  is  out  of  St  Basil,  'de 
Spiritu  Sancto  ad  Amphilochium.'  But  the  book,  with 
just  reason,  is  suspected2.  Three  of  the  traditions 
mentioned  in  the  place3  are,  the  consecration  of  the 
person  to  be  baptized,  the  standing  at  the  prayers 
until  Pentecost,  and  above  all,  the  trine  immersion  in 
baptism.  The  two  first  of  these  are  not  acknow- 
ledged by  the  present  Church  of  Rome  ;  and  the  last, 
by  the  very  Council  of  Trent4,  is  pronounced  not  to 
be  of  apostolical  tradition. 

Here  is  not  one  word  touching  any  tradition  for 
the  Infallibility  of  the  Church,  but  indeed  much  rea- 
son against  it :  for  either  the  present  Church  at  that 

1  [Vindication  of  Archbp.  Laud,  Vol.  i.  p.  386.] 

2  [Respecting  its  genuineness,  see  Stillingfleet,  as  above ;  and 
Cave,  Hist.  Literar.  sub  Basil.] 

s  [De  Spiritu  Sancto,  c.  xxvii.  Opp.  Tom.  n.  p.  351,  c ;  ed. 
Paris.  1637.] 

4  [Catechism,  ad  Parochos,  de  Baptismo,  pp.  158,  159.  ed. 
Lovan.  1567  :  'Utrum  vero  unica,  an  trina  ablutio  fiat,  nihil  referre 
existimandum  est.'  On  the  history  of  the  practice,  see  Bingham, 
Book  xi.  chap.  xi.  s.  6,  7,  8.] 


200  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XVI. 

time  was  actually  deceived,  and  took  that  to  be  apos- 
tolical which  was  not  so,  or  the  present  Church  in  the 
Council  of  Trent  took  that  not  to  be  apostolical 
which  indeed  was  so,  and  was  actually  deceived  in  her 
judgment  and  determination  to  the  contrary.  For 
those  words  of  that  author,  "  unwritten  traditions 
have  equal  force  to  stir  up  piety  with  the  written 
word,"  put  the  dilemma  beyond  exception,  as  those 
known  words  of  the  true1  Basil,  that  "it  is  a  manifest 
falling  from  the  faith,  and  an  argument  of  arrogancy, 
either  to  reject  any  point  of  those  things  which  are 
written,  or  to  bring  in  any  of  those  things  which  are 
not  written," — make  it  justly  suspicious  that  the  book 
extolling  unwritten  traditions  was  none  of  his. 

Bellarmine's2  three  arguments,  (1)  the  Fathers  say 
the  sentence  of  general  Councils  admits  of  no  appeal, 
(2)  such  as  submit  not  to  them  are  heretics,  (3)  such 
sentence  is  Divine, — prove  their  authority,  but  not 
their  Infallibility ;  and  '  the  force  of  such  sentence 
with  the  Fathers  was  ever  taken  from  Scripture,  or 
reason,  or  miracles,  or  approbation  of  the  whole 
Church,'  as  Occham  and  S.  Clara3  after  St  Augustine 
affirm.  Therefore  the  Fathers  generally  allow  us 
liberty  of  examination,  and  derogate  faith  from  all 
men  beside  the  Apostles. 

1  [De  Vera  ac  Pia  Fide ;  Opp.  Tom.  H.  p.  386.  c. :  <pavtpa 
fKTTTaxns  irl<TTea>s  KOI  inrfprjcpavtas  Karrjyopia,  fj  aBtrfiv  TI  ra>v  y€ypa/j,- 
JUCMMT,  TI  fTTfitrdyfiv  T&V  pf)  yeypafj.p.fvo)v,  K.  r.  A.] 

2  [De    Concil.   Lib.  n.   c.  3;    Disputat.  Tom.  n.    p.  256;    ed. 
Colon.  1628.     His  arguments  are  considered  at  length  in  Pool's 
'Nullity  of  the  Romish  Faith,'  pp.  70,  et  seqq.] 

3  System.  Fidei,  c.  xxvi.  §  2.  [where  the  author  cites  Occham 
and  St  Augustine  at  length.] 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

THIRD  ARGUMENT  FOR  INFALLIBILITY,  FROM 

REASON— THREE    REASONS   ANSWERED— 

POINT  ARGUED— RETORTED. 


IT  is  confessed,  that  though  Scripture  and  tradition 
prove  it  not,  yet  if  there  be  indeed  any  sound 
reason  (which  is  a  kind  of  Divine  law)  for  the  Pope's 
Infallibility,  that  will  go  a  great  way.  But  it  doubt- 
less ought  to  be  very  clear  and  strong  reason,  that  is 
able  to  carry  it  in  so  great  a  point,  without  either 
Scripture  or  tradition.  Let  us  hearken. 

Perhaps  we  have  tradition  offering  its  service  to  Reason  I. 
reason  in  another  form,  and  the  argument  may  stand 
thus :   tradition   is    infallible,    but   the    Pope    in    the 
Church  of  Rome  is  the  keeper  of  tradition  ;  therefore 
thereby  the  Pope  is  infallible. 

This    argument   indeed    hath    countenance    from  Answers. 
antiquity :  for  Irenaeus l  adviseth  his  adversaries  who 
pretended  tradition  to  go  to  Rome,  and  there  they 
might  know  what  was  true  and  apostolical  tradition, 
for  there  it  was  preserved. 

But  how  could  that  Father  assure  us  that  Rome 
would  always  be  a  faithful  preserver  of  true  apos- 
tolical tradition? 

What  security  could  he  give  to  after  ages  against 
innovations  and  additions  to  tradition  itself  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  ? 

i  [See  above,  p.  99.] 


202  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XVII. 

Remember  what  hath  been  said,  that  tradition 
can  be  thought  infallible  only  in  the  substantiate  of 
religion  ;  and  consequently  cannot  protect  either 
itself  or  the  Church  from  additional  errors  in  other 
things. 

Besides,  in  the  substantiate  of  Religion  the  pro- 
testant  Churches  have  the  benefit  of  tradition  as  well 
as  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  and  if  that  carry  Infallibility 
with  it,  our  Church  is  infallible  as  well  as  the  Church 
of  Rome  ;  and  consequently  thereby  hath  a  right  to 
govern  itself. 

Reason  II.  jjut  the  great  reason  always  gloried  in  is  from 
the  wisdom  and  prudence  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  who 
had  he  not  intended  to  afford  the  assistance  of  Infal- 
libility to  the  succeeding  pastors  of  his  Church,  to 
lead  them  when  assembled  in  a  general  Council,  he 
had  built  his  Church  upon  the  sand ;  as  T.  C.  argues 
with  his  Grace  of  Canterbury l. 

Answer.  Admit  the  necessity  of  this  assistance  to  the  pas- 

tors of  the  Church,  what  is  this  to  prove  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  in  the  Pope,  because  of  his 
infallibility  ? 

But  if  our  Saviour  should  not  have  assured  us 
that  he  will  thus  assist  his  Church  in  all  ages,  (as  you 
cannot  shew),  how  do  you  know  he  hath  intended  it  ? 
And  how  unchristian  is  your  reason,  to  impeach  your 
Saviour  with  the  inference  of  folly,  and  (as  at  other 
times)  with  ignorance  and  imposture,  if  he  hath  not  ? 

Take  heed ;  hath  not  our  Saviour  built  his  Church 
upon  the  foundation2  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  ? 

1  [Labyrinth.  Cantuar.  p.  104,  §  7.] 

2  [Eph.  ii.  20;  Rev.  xxi.  14. 


CHAP.  XVII.]  INFALLIBILITY.  203 

And  is  this  sand  in  the  Roman  sense  ?  Is  not  Christ 
himself  the  chief1  corner-stone  ?  Is  He  sand  too  ? 
Doth  not  he  that  keepeth  His  sayings  build  upon  a 
rock,  as  firm  as  the  decrees  of  a  general  Council  ? 

Where  hath  our  Saviour  given  us  the  least  inti- 
mation that  inherent  Infallibility  is  the  only  rock  to 
secure  the  Church  from  error?  Is  there  not  sufficient 
ground  to  rely  on  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  had  there 
never  been  a  general  Council  ?  What,  was  the  Church 
built  upon  the  sand  only  before  the  Council  of  Nice  ? 
Why  did  it  not  then  fall  in  the  storms  of  persecution  ? 

Did  not  the  Apostles  commit  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  to  writing  ?  Is  not  tradition  the  great  mean 
of  delivering  the  Scriptures,  and  all  things  needful  to 
salvation,  by  your  own  arguments?  May  not  the 
latter  be  done  by  nurses  and  tutors,  &c.,  without  a 
general  Council  ?  And  if  there  be  lesser  differences 
in  the  Church,  is  the  foundation  subverted  presently  ? 
And  may  not  those  lesser  differences  among  Chris- 
tians be  healed  with  argument,  or  at  least  quieted ; 
and  the  peace  of  the  Church  preserved  by  the  decrees 
of  Councils,  without  infallibility  ?  How  unreasonable 
is  it  to  deny  it ! 

"  We  grant,"  saith  Doctor  StiUingfleeta,  "  Infalli- 
bility in  the  foundation  of  faith ;  we  declare  the 
owning  of  that  Infallibility  is  that  which  makes  men 
Christians,  (the  body  of  whom  we  call  a  Church) ;  we 
further  grant  that  Christ  hath  left  in  that  Church  suf- 
ficient means  for  the  preservation  of  it  in  truth  and 
unity  :"  but  '  we  cannot  discern,  either  from  Scripture, 

1  [Eph.  ii.  20.] 

2  p.  259;  [Vindication,  Vol.  i.  p.  412 ;  new  ed.] 


204  INFALLIBILITY.  [CHAP.  XVII. 

reason,  or  antiquity,  that  such  Infallibility  is  necessary 
for  the  Church's  preservation,  by  the  Councils  of  suc- 
ceeding pastors ;  much  less  a  living  and  standing 
infallible  judge,  as  the  Head  of  the  Church.' 

But  they  say,  '  the  infinite  dissensions  and  divisions 
amongst  those  that  deny  it  make  this  necessary.' 

How  is  it  in  the  Roman  Church1?  Are  there  no 
divisions  there  ?  Or  is  the  sole  remedy  ineffectual  ? 
Yea,  are  there  no  differences  there  about  Infallibility 2 
itself,  the  manner  and  subject  of  it  ?  Are  not  many 
of  yourselves  ashamed  and  weary  of  it?  Do  not 
some  of  you  deny  it,  and  set  up  tradition  instead  of 
it  ?  Was  not  the  Apostle3  to  blame  to  say,  '  there 
must  be  heresies  or  divisions  among  you,'  and  not  to 
tell  them  there  must  be  an  infallible  judge  among 
you,  and  no  heresies  ? — But  now  men  are  wiser,  and 
of  another  mind. 

To  conclude, — whether  we  regard  the  truth  or 
unity  of  the  Church,  both  reason  and  sense  assures  us 
that  this  Infallibility  signifies  nothing  :  for,  as  to  truth, 
it  is  impossible  men  should  give  up  their  faith  and 
conscience,  and  inward  apprehension  of  things,  to  the 
sentence  of  any  one  man,  or  all  the  men  in  the  world, 
against  their  own  reason  ;  and  for  unity,  there  is  no 
colour  or  shadow  of  pretence  against  it,  but  that  the 
authority  of  ecclesiastical  government  can  preserve  it, 
as  well  with  as  without  Infallibility. 

1  [See  Leslie's  '  Case  stated:'  Works,  Vol.  m.  pp.  18  et  seqq.J 

2  [This  was  the  great  subject  of  debate  between  the  Ultramon- 
tanists  and  the  Gallicans  during  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries.      See  Mr  Palmer's  '  Treatise  on  the  Church,'  Part  vu. 
chap.  v.  sect.  1.] 

a  [1  Cor.  xi.  19.] 


CHAP.  XVII.]  INFALLIBILITY.  205 

But  if  there  be  any  sense  in  the  argument,  me- 
thinks  it  is  better  thus :  the  Head  and  Governor  of 
the  Christian  Church  must  of  necessity  be  infallible ; 
but  the  Pope  is  not  infallible,  either  by  Scripture, 
tradition,  or  reason ;  therefore  the  Pope  is  not  the 
Head  and  Governor  of  the  Christian  Church. 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

OF  THE  POPE'S  UNIVERSAL  PASTORSHIP-ITS 
RIGHT,  DIVINE  OR  HUMAN— THIS  CIVIL, 
OR  ECCLESIASTICAL— ALL  EXAMINED 
— CONSTANTINE— KING  JOHN- 
JUSTINIAN— PHOCAS,  &c. 


WE  have  found  some  flaws  in  the  pretended  title 
of  the  Pope,  as  our  Converter,  Patriarch,  Pos- 
sessor, and  as  the  subject  of  Infallibility.  His  last 
and  greatest  argument  is  his  Universal  Pastorship ; 
and  indeed,  if  it  be  proved  that  he  is  the  Pastor  of 
the  whole  Church  of  Christ  on  earth,  he  is  ours  also ; 
and  we  cannot  withdraw  our  obedience  from  him, 
without  the  guilt  of  that  which  is  charged  upon  us, 
viz.  schism,  (if  his  commands  be  justifiable) :  but  if  the 
proof  of  this  fail  also,  we  are  acquitted. 

This  right  of  the  Pope's  Universal  Pastorship  is 
Divine  or  human  (if  at  all) :  both  are  pretended,  and 
are  to  be  examined. 

The  Bishop  of  Chalcedon1  is  very  indifferent  and 
reasonable  as  to  the  original :  if  the  right  be  granted, 
it  is  not  de  fide  to  believe  whether  it  come  from  God 
or  no. 

If  the  Pope  be  Universal  Pastor  jure  humano  only? 
his  title  is  either  from  civil  or  from  ecclesiastical 
power ;  and,  lest  we  should  err  fundamentally,  we  shall 
consider  the  pretences  from  both. 

1  ['  Survey  of  the  Lord   of   Derry  his  Treatise    of   Schism.' 
chap.  v.  sect.  3.] 


CHAP.  XVIII.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  207 

If  it  be  said  that  the  civil  power  hath  conferred 
this  honour  upon  the  Pope,  may  it  not  be  questioned 
whether  the  civil  powers  of  the  world  extend  so  far, 
as  either  to  dispose  of  the  government  of  the  Church, 
or  to  subject  all  the  Churches  under  one  Pastor? 

However,  de  facto,  when  was  this  done  ?  When 
did  the  Kings  of  England,  in  conjunction  with  the 
rulers  of  the  whole  world,  make  such  a  grant  to  the 
Pope? 

I   think   the   world   hath   been    ashamed    of  the  Donation 
'  Donation  of  Constantine '  long  agon ;  yet,  that  no  tine.0nstan 
shadow  may  remain  unscattered,  we  shall  briefly  take 
an  account  of  it. 

They  say,  '  Constantine  the  third  day  after  he 
was  baptized  left  all  the  West  part  of  the  empire  to  * 
Pope  Sylvester,  and  went  himself  to  dwell  at  Con- 
stantinople ;  and  gave  the  whole  imperial  and  civil 
dominion  of  Rome,  and  all  the  Western  kingdoms,  to 
the  Pope  and  his  successors  for  ever.' 

A  large  boon  indeed.  This  looks  as  if  it  was 
intended  that  the  Pope  should  be  an  Emperor,  but 
who  makes  him  Universal  Pastor?  And  who  ever 
since  hath  bequeathed  the  Eastern  world  to  him, 
either  as  Pastor  or  Emperor?  For,  it  should  seem, 
that  part  Constantine  then  kept  for  himself. 

But  Mr  Harding1  throws  off  all  these  little  cavils, 
and  with  sufficient  evidence  out  of  Matthseus  Hiero- 
monachus,  a  Greek  author,  shews  the  very  words  of 
the  decree  which  carry  it  for  the  Pope,  as  well  in 
ecclesiastical  as  civil  advantages.  They  are  these2 : 

1  [Bp.  Jewel's  Defence  of  the  Apology,  p.  589;  ed.  1570.] 

2  [Ibid.] 


208  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XVIII. 

"  We  decree,  and  give  in  charge  to  all  lords,  and  to 
the  senate  of  our  Empire,  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  successor  of  Saint  Peter,  chief  of  the  Apostles, 
have  authority  and  power  in  all  the  world,  greater 
than  that  of  the  Empire,  that  he  have  more  honour 
than  the  Emperor,  and  that  he  be  head  of  the  four 
patriarchal  seats,  and  that  matters  of  faith  be  by  him 
determined." — This  is  the  charter  whereby  some 
think  the  '  Pope  hath  power  (saith  John  of  Paris l)  as 
Lord  of  the  whole  world  to  set  up  and  pull  down 
Kings.' 

It  is  confessed  this  grant  is  not  pleaded  lately 
with  any  confidence.  Indeed  Bishop  Jewel2  did  check 
it  early,  when  he  shewed  Harding  the  wisest  and  best 
among  the  Papists  have  openly  disproved  it :  such  as 
Platina,  Cusanus,  Patavinus,  Laurentius  Valla,  Anto- 
ninus Florentinus,  and  a  great  many  more". 

Cardinal  Cusanus  hath  these  words :  "  Carefully 
weighing  this  grant  of  Constantine,  even  in  the  very 
penning  thereof  I  find  manifest  arguments  of  forgery 
and  falsehood4." 

It  is  not  found  in  the  Register  of  Gratian,  (that 
is,  in  the  allowed  original  text),  though  it  be  indeed 
in  the  PaUa  of  some  books ;  yet  that  Palea  is  not 
read  in  the  schools : — and  of  it  Pope  Pius  II.  himself 

1  [Tractatus  de  Regia  Potest.  et  Papali,  c.  xxn ;  apud  Goldast. 
de  Monarch.  Tom.  n. ;  and  in  Bp.  Jewel,  p.  590.]  2  [Ibid.] 

3  [Ibid.     The  Treatise  of  Laurentius  Valla  gave  the  death-blow 
to  this  forgery.     The  title  is  '  De  ementita  Constantini  Donatione 
Declamatio.'    It  is  printed  in  the  '  Fasciculus  Rerum,'  etc.,  pp.  132 
et  seqq.  ed.  1690.] 

4  De  Catholica  Concordantia,  Lib.  in.  c.  2.  [in  the  '  Fasciculus 
Rerum,'  p.  168.] 


CHAI>.  XVIII.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  209 

said,  Dicta  Palea  '  Constantinus '  falsa  est,  and  inveighs 
against  the  Canonists  that  dispute  An  valuerit  id,  quod 
nunquam  fuit ;  and  those  that  speak  most  favourably 
of  it  confess  that  it  is  as  true  that,  at  the  same  time, 
the  voice  of  angels  was  heard  in  the  air,  saying,  Hodie 
venenum  effusum  est  in  Ecclesiam1. 

Much  more  to  the  discountenance  of  this  vain 
story  you  have  in  Bishop  Jewel's  '  Defence,'  which  to 
my  observation  was  never  since  answered :  to  him 
therefore  I  refer  my  reader. 

But  alas !  if  Constantine  had  made  such  a  grant, 
Pope  Pius2  tells  us  it  was  a  question  among  the  very 
Canonists  an  valuerit;  and  the  whole  world  besides 
must  judge  the  grant  void  in  itself,  especially  after 
Constantine's  time. 

Had  Satan's  grant  been  good  to  our  Saviour,  if  He 
had  fallen  down  and  worshipped  him  ?  No  more  had 
Constantine's  (pardon  the  comparison) ;  for  in  other 
things  he  shewed  great  and  worthy  zeal  for  the  flou- 
rishing grandeur  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  though  by 
this  he  had  (as  was  said)  given  nothing  but  poison  to 
it ;  for  the  empire  of  the  world,  and  the  universal 
Pastorship  of  the  Church,  was  not  Constantine's  to 
give  to  the  Pope  and  his  successors  for  ever. 

But  it  is  urged  nearer  home,  that  King  John  deli-  King  John, 
vered  up  his  crown  to  the  Pope,  and  received  it  again 
as  his  gift. 

It  is  true3 ;   but  this  act  of  present  fear  could  not 

1  [See  these  and  other  similar  particulars  in  Bp.  Jewel's  De- 
fence, pp.  590,  591  ;  also  pp.  453,  454.] 

2  [i.e.  ^Eneas  Sylvius,  Pius  II.,  as,above.] 

3  [Mat.  Paris,  A.D.  1212,  1213,  pp.  232,  et  seqq.  ed.  1639.] 

14 


210  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.          [CHAP.  XVIII. 

be  construed  a  grant  of  right  to  the  Pope  :  if  King- 
John  gave  away  any  thing,  it  was  neither  the  power 
of  making  laws  for  England,  nor  the  exercise  of  any 
jurisdiction  in  England  that  he  had  not  before ;  for 
he  only  acknowledged  (unworthily)  the  Pope's  power, 
but  pretended  not  to  give  him  such  power  to  confer 
the  crown  for  ever ;  much  less  to  make  him  supreme 
disposer  of  our  English  Church. 

But  if  our  constitution  be  considered,  how  incon- 
siderable an  argument  is  this !  Our  Kings  cannot 
give  away  the  power  of  the  Crown  during  their  own 
times  without  an  Act  of  Parliament ;  the  King  and 
Parliament  together  cannot  dispose  of  any  thing  in- 
herent to  the  Crown  of  England  without  a  power  of 
resumption,  or  to  the  prejudice  of  succeeding  Kings  : 
besides  no  King  of  England  ever  did  (not  King  John 
himself),  either  with  or  without  his  Parliament,  by  any 
solemn  public  act,  transfer  the  government  of  this 
Church  to  the  Bishop  of  Eome,  or  so  much  as  recog- 
nize it  to  be  in  him,  before  Henry  VIII. ; — and  what 
John  did  was  protested  against  by  the  three  states 
then  in  Parliament1. 

And  although  Queen  Mary  since  made  a  higher 
acknowledgment  of  his  Holiness  than  ever  we  read 
was  done  here  before  ;  yet  it  is  evident  she  gave  him 
rather  the  compliment  of  the  title  of  that  uncertain 
word  '  Supreme  Head '  than  any  real  power,  (as  we 
observed2  before) ;  and  yet  her  new  act  to  that  pur- 
pose was  endured  to  remain  in  force  but  a  very  short 
time,  about  four  or  five  years. 

1  Harpsfield,  Hist.  Eccl.  Angl.  Ssec.  xiv.  c.  5. 

2  [See  above,  p.  123.] 


CIIAI-.  XVIII.]          UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  21 1 

But  although  neither  Constantine  for  the  whole  Justinian. 
world,  nor  King  John  for  England,  did  or  could  devise 
the  supremacy  to  the  Pope,  it  is  confessed  the  Em- 
peror Justinian   endeavoured   somewhat   that  looked 
like  it. 

Justinian  was  a  great  friend  of  the  Roman  Bishop  : 
he  saith1,  Properamus  honorem  et  auctoritatem  crescere 
sedis  vestrce ;  '  we  labour  to  subject  and  unite  all  the 
Eastern  priests  to  the  See  of  your  Holiness2.' 

But  this  is  a  plain  demonstration  that  the  See  of 
Rome  did  not  extend  to  the  East  near  six  hundred 
years  after  Christ ;  otherwise  that  would  have  been 
no  addition  of  honour  or  authority  to  it,  neither 
would  Justinian  have  endeavoured  what  was  done 
before ;  as  it  doth  not  appear  that  he  afterwards 
effected  it. 

Therefore  the  title  that  he  then  gave  the  Pope3, 
'  the  Chief  and  Head  of  all  the  Churches,'  must  carry 
a  qualified  sense,  and  was  only  a  title  of  honour  befit- 
ting the  Bishop  of  the  chief  and  most  eminent  Church, 
as  the  Roman  Church  then  was,  (and  indeed  Justinian 
was  a  courtier,  and  styles  the  Bishop  of  Constantin- 
ople4 universal  Patriarch  too) ;  or  at  most  can  only 
signify  that  his  intentions  were  to  raise  the  Pope  to 
the  chief  power  over  the  whole  Church ;  which  (as 
was  said  before)  he  had  not  yet  obtained. 

1  [In  Codice,  Lib.  i.,  de  Summa  Trinitate,  p.  21,  col.  2 ;   ed. 
Antverp.  1576.] 

2  ["Ideoque  omnes  sacerdotes  universi    orientalis  tractus   et 
subjicere  et  unire  sedi  vestrse  sanctitatis  properavimus."    Ibid.] 

3  [. .  .  "ut  non  etiam  vestrse  innotescat  sanctitati,  quse  caput 
est  omnium  sanctarum  ecclesiarum."    Ibid.] 

4  [Justin.   Cod.   Lib.  i.  Tit.  ii.  c.  24.       See  Bingham,   Antiq. 
Book  n.  c.  xvii.  $  21.] 

14—2 


212  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.          [CHAP.  XVIII. 

This  is  all  that  can  be  inferred,  if  these  Epistles 
betwixt  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  be  not  forged ; — 
as  learned  Papists1  suspect,  because  in  the  eldest  and 
allowed  books  they  are  not  to  be  found. 

However,  if  Justinian  did  design  any  thing  in 
favour  of  the  Pope,  it  was  only  the  subjecting  of  the 
clergy  to  him  as  an  ecclesiastical  ruler ;  and  yet  that 
no  further  than  might  well  enough  consist  with  the 
supremacy  of  the  empire,  in  causes  ecclesiastical  as 
well  as  civil, — which  memento  spoils  all  the  argument. 

For  we  find  the  same  Justinian2  under  this  impe- 
rial style,  '  We  command  the  most  holy  Archbishops 
and  Patriarchs  of  Rome,  Constantinople,  Alexandria, 
Antioch,  and  Hierusalem.' 

We  find  him  making  laws3  upon  Monks,  Priests, 
Bishops,  and  all  kind  of  Churchmen,  to  enforce  them 
to  their  duty. 

We  find  him  putting  forth  his  power  and  autho- 
rity for  the  sanction  of  the  Canons  of  Councils,  and 
making  them  to  have  the  force  of  laws4. 

We  find  him  punishing  the  Clergy  and  the  Popes 
themselves ;  yea  it  is  well  known  and  confessed  by 


1  [This  is  stated  on  the  authority  of  Bp.  Jewel,  (Defence  of 
the  Apology,  p.  754),  who  refers  to  .Gregory  Haloander  (or  Hoff- 
mann, an  eminent  lawyer) :  see  also  Comber's  '  Roman  Forgeries', 
Part  u.  p.  251,  Lond.  1689.] 

2  [Novel.   Constit.  cxxm. ;  p.  Ill,  col.  2;  ed.  Antverp.  1575: 
"Jubemus  igitur,  ut  beatiss.  quidem  archiepiscopi  et  patriarchae, 
hoc  est,  senioris  Romse,  Constantinopolis,  Alexandrite,  Theopolis 
et  Hierosolymarum,"  etc.] 

3  [See  a  summary  of  his  ecclesiastical  laws  in  Fleury,  liv.  xxxn. 
$50.] 

4  [Codex,  Lib.  I.,  de  Summa  Trinitate,  passim ;  and  more  par- 
ticularly Novel.  Constit.  cxxxi.] 


CHAP.  XVIII.]          UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  213 

llomanists  that  he  deprived  two  Popes,  Sylverius1  and 
Vigilius2.  Indeed  Mr  Harding3  saith,  that  was  done 
by  Theodora  the  Empress,  but  it  is  otherwise  recorded 
in  their  own  Pontifical ;  the  Emperor  demanded  of 
Belisarius,  what  he  had  done  with  the  Romans,  and 
how  he  had  deposed  Sylverius,  and  placed  Vigilius  in 
his  stead  ?  Upon  his  answer,  both  the  Emperor  and 
Empress  gave  him  thanks4.  Now  it  is  a  rule  in  law, 
Ratihabitio  retrotrahitur,  et  mandato  comparatur. 

Zabarella  declares5  it  to  be  law,  that  'the  Pope  in 
any  notorious  crime  may  be  accused  before  the  Em- 
peror ;  and  the  Emperor  may  require  of  the  Pope  an 
account  of  his  faith.'  And  'the  Emperor  ought  to 
proceed,'  saith  John  of  Paris,  '  against  the  Pope  upon 
the  request  of  the  Cardinals6.' 

And  it  was  the  judgment  of  the  same  Justinian 
himself,  that  there  is  no  kind  of  thing  but  it  may  be 
thoroughly  examined  by  the  Emperor ;  for  he  hath 
a  principality  from  God  over  all  men,  the  Clergy  as 
well  as  Laity7. 

But  his  erecting  of  Justiniana  Prima,  and  giving 

1  [Platina,  in  Vit.  Sylver.  p.  144;  ed.  1664.] 

2  [This  pope  was  summoned  by  the  emperor  to   Constantin- 
ople, and  though  well  received  in  the  first  instance,  was  after- 
wards   treated    with    the  greatest    ignominy.       Platina   in    Vit. 
Vigil,  i.  pp.  146,  147.     Nicephorus  gives  a  similar  account,  Eccl. 
Hist.  Lib.  xvn.  c.  26;  Tom.  n.  p.  774.] 

3  [In  Jewel's  Defence,  p.  755.] 

4  [See  the  Life  of  Vigilius  in  Labbe,  Concil.  Tom.  v.  306,  D.] 

«  [De  Schismate  et  Concil.  quoted  by  Bp.   Jewel,  ubi  supra, 
p.  756.] 

6  [Do  Potestate  Regia  et  Papali,  cap.  xiv. ;  apud  Goldast.  de 
Monarchia,  Tom.  n.] 

7  [See  the  imperial  edict  read  before  the  Council  of  Constan- 
tinople, A.D.  553,  in  Labbe,  Concil.  Tom.  v.  419,  et  seqq.] 


214  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XVIII. 

the  Bishop1  locum  Apostolicce  sedis,  to  which  all  the 
provinces  should  make  their  last  appeal ;  whereby  (as 
Nicephorus2  affirms)  '  the  Emperor  made  it  a  free 
city,  a  head  to  itself,  with  full  power  independent 
from  all  others' — and  as  it  is  in  the  imperial  consti- 
tutions3, the  Primate  thereof  should  have  all  power  of 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  the  supreme  priesthood,  su- 
preme honour  and  dignity — this  is  such  an  instance, 
both  of  Justinian's  judgment  and  power,  contrary  to 
the  Pope's  pretensions  of  supremacy  (as  granted  or 
acknowledged  by  the  Emperor  Justinian),  that  all 
other  arguments  of  it  are  ex  abundanti ;  and  there  is 
no  great  need  of  subjoining  that  other  great  and  like 
instance  of  his  restoring  Carthage  to  its  primacy 
after  the  Vandals  were  driven  out4,  and  annexing 
two  new  provinces,  that  were  not  so  before,  to  its 
jurisdiction,  without  the  proviso  of  submitting  itself 
to  Rome ;  though  before  Carthage  had  ever  refused 
to  do  it. 

Phocas  the  Emperor  and  Pope  Boniface  no  doubt 
understood  one  another5,  and  were  well  enough  agreed 
upon  the  point:  but  we  shall  never  yield  that  these 


1  [Authent.  Collat.  ix.  Novel,  cxxxi.  Tit.  xiv.  c.  3 ;  cf.  Authont. 
Collat.  H.  Novel.  XL] 

2  [The  reference  is  probably  to  Nicephorus  Callist.  Eccl.  Hist. 
Lib.  xvi.  c.  37 ;  Tom.  n.   p.  716,  A.    A.  minute  account  of  Justi- 
niana  Prima  is  given  by  Dr  Hammond,  'Answer  to  Schism  Dis- 
armed,' chap.  iv.  sect,  vii.] 

3  [As  above,  note  1.] 

4  [Novel,  cxxxi.  c.  4 ;  and  see  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  xxxn. 
§  48,  49.] 

6  [In  allusion  to  the  title  'universal  bishop'  which  Phocas  the 
usurper  gave  Boniface  III.  The  circumstances  are  narrated  by 
Paulus  Diaconus,  do  Gestis  Longobard.  Lib.  iv.  c.  11.] 


CHAP.  XVIII. J          UNIVERSAL  PASTOR,  215 

two  did  legally  represent  the  Church  and  the  world, 
or  that  the  grant  of  the  one,  and  the  greedy  accept- 
ance on  the  other  part,  could  bind  all  Christians  and 
all  mankind  in  subjection  to  his  Holiness's  chair  for 
ever. 

Valentinian  said1,  'All  antiquity  hath  given  the 
principality  of  priesthood  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome : ' 
but  no  antiquity  ever  gave  him  a  principality  of 
power ; — no  doubt  he,  as  well  as  the  other  Emperors, 
kept  the  political  supremacy  in  his  own  hands. 

Charles  the  Great2  might  compliment  Adrian,  and 
call  him  universal  Pope,  and  say  he  gave  St  Wilihade 
a  bishopric  at  his  command :  but  he  kept  the  power 
of  convocating  Synods3  every  year,  and  sat  in  them 
as  a  judge4  himself; — auditor  et  arbiter  adsedi.  He 
made  ecclesiastical  decrees  in  his  own  name ; — to 
whom  this  very  Pope  Adrian  acquitted  all  claim  in 
the  election  of  succeeding  Popes  for  ever5.  A  great 
deal  more  in  answer  to  both  these  you  have  in  Arch- 
bishop Bramhall6,  and  King  James's  '  Defence7.' 

1  [i.  e.  Valentinian  III.  in  a  letter  to  Theodosius  the  younger ; 
in  Labbe,  Concil.  Tom.  iv.  62,  E.] 

2  [This  is  one  of  Richard  Smith's  objections,  in  his  '  Survey' 
of  Bramhall's  Treatise  of  Schism,  pp.  106,  107.] 

3  [Carol.  Magni  et  Ludov.  Pii  Capit.  Lib.  v.  c.  2.] 

4  [Vid.  Carol.   Mag.  Epist.  apud  Goldast.  Constit.  Imperial. 
Part  i.  p.  3.] 

s  [Apud  Goldast.  ubi  supra,  p.  1.] 

6  pp.  235,  236;   [Vol.  n.  pp.  231,  232,  new  ed.j 

1  p.  60;  [Works,  pp.  408,  409;  ed.  1616.] 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

THE  POPE'S  PRETENDED  ECCLESIASTICAL  RIGHT 
NOT  BY  GENERAL  COUNCILS— FIRST  EIGHT— 
TO    WHICH    SWORN— JUSTINIAN'S    SANC- 
TION—CANONS APOSTOLICAL  ALLOWED 
BY  COUNCILS  OF  NICE  AND  EPHESUS. 


THOUGH  it  seem  below  his  Holiness's  present 
grandeur  to  ground  his  right  upon  the  civil 
power,  especially  when  that  fails  him  ;  yet  methinks 
the  jus  ecclesiasticum  is  not  at  all  unbecoming  his  pre- 
tences, who  is  sworn  to  govern  the  Church  according 
to  the  Canons,  as  they  say  the  Pope  is1. 

If  it  be  pleaded  that  the  Canons  of  the  Fathers  do 
invest  the  Pope  with  plenary  power  over  all  Churches, 
and  if  it  could  be  proved  too,  yet  one  thing  more 
remains  to  be  proved,  to  subject  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land to  that  his  power,  viz.,  that  the  Canon  Law  is 
binding  and  of  force  in  England  as  such,  or  without 
our  own  consent  or  allowance.  And  it  is  impossible 
this  should  be  proved  while  our  Kings  are  supreme, 
and  the  constitution  of  the  kingdom  stands  as  it  hath 
always  stood. 

However,  we  decline  not  the  examination  of  the 
plea,  viz.  that  the  Pope's  supremacy  over  the  whole 
Church  is  granted  by  the  Canons  of  Councils,  viz. 
General.  But  when  this  is  said,  it  is  but  reasonable 
to  demand  which,  or  in  what  Canons. 

1  [See  above,  p.  61.] 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  217 

It  is  said,  the  Pope  receives  his  office  with  an 
oath  to  observe  the  Canons  of  the  first  eight  general 
Councils  : — in  which  of  these  is  the  grant  to  be  found  ? 
Sure  so  great  a  conveyance  should  be  very  legible  and 
intelligible. 

We  find  it  very  plain  that  in  some  of  those  Coun- 
cils, and  those  the  most  ancient,  this  power  is  ex- 
pressly denied  him,  and  that  upon  such  reason  as  is 
eternal ;  and  might  justly  and  effectually  prevent  any 
such  grant  or  usurpation  of  such  power  for  ever,  if 
future  grants  were  to  be  just  and  reasonable,  or 
future  Popes  were  to  be  governed  by  right  or  equity, 
— by  the  Canons  of  the  Fathers,  or  fidelity  to  the 
Church,  to  God,  or  their  own  solemn  oaths  at  their 
inaugurations. 

But  we  are  prepared  for  the  examination  of  the 
Councils  in  this  matter  by  a  very  strong  presumption  ; 
that  seeing  Justinian  made  the  Canons  to  have  the 
force  of  laws,  and  he  had  ever  shewed  himself  so 
careful  to  maintain  the  rights  of  the  empire  in  all 
causes,  as  well  as  over  all  persons  ecclesiastical,  and 
even  Popes  themselves,  it  is  not  credible  that  he 
would  suffer  any  thing  in  those  Canons  to  pass  into 
the  body  of  the  laws,  that  should  be  agreeable  to  the 
pretended  donation  of  Constantine,  or  to  the  pre- 
judice of  the  Emperor's  said  supremacy  ;  and  conse- 
quently not  much  in  favour  of  the  supremacy  claimed 
by  later  Popes. 

Justinian's  sanction   extended  to  the  four  great  Justinian's 

Sanction  ot 

Councils,   of  Nice,    Constantinople,   Ephesus  I.,  and  first  four 

General 

Chalcedon, — in  these   words1,    "  Sandmus    igittir,    nt  Councils. 
1  [Novel.  Constit.  cxxxr.  p.  120,  col.  2;  ed.  Antvcrp.  1575.] 


218  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

sancti  ecelesiastici  canones,  qui  a  sanctis  quatuor  con- 
ciliis  (Iwc  est  Nicceno,...Constantinopolitano,...Ephesino 
primo,...et  Chalcedonensi,...)  expositi  et  confirmati  sunt, 
vicem  legum  obtineant.  Prcedictorum  etenim  sanctorum 
conciliorum  decreta  perinde  ut  sacras  Scripturas  suscipi- 
mus,  et  canones  ut  leges  custodimus." 

Apostles'  Perhaps  it  may  be  doubted  why  he  did  not  con- 

Canons  not  . 

mentioned,  firm  those  Canons  which  were  then  well  known  by  the 

Reason,  title  of  the  Canons  of  the  Apostles  ;  whether l  because 
their  authority  was  suspected,  especially  many  of 
them ;  or  because  they  were  not  made  by  a  truly 
general  Council ;  or  because  they  were  confirmed  in 
and  with  the  Council  of  Nice  and  Ephesus,  &c. ;  or 
lastly,  whether  because  the  first  fifty  had  before  a 
greater  sanction  from  the  general  reception  of  the 
whole  Church,  or  the  greater  authority  of  the  sacred 
names  of  the  authors,  the  Apostles  or  apostolical 
men, — I  venture  not  to  declare  my  opinion. 

But  truly  there  seems  something  considerable  for 
the  latter,  for  that  the  Council  of  Nice  do  not  pretend 
to  confirm  the  Apostles'  Canons,  but  their  own,  by  the 
quotation  of  them ;  taking  authority  from  them,  as 
laws  founded  in  the  Church  before,  to  build  their  own 
and  all  future  Canons  and  decrees  of  Councils  upon, 
in  such  matters  as  were  found  there  determined. 

A  great  instance  of  the  probability  of  this  con- 
jecture we  have,  full  to  our  present  purpose,  given  us 
by  Binius2:  "The  Nicene  and  Ephesine  Synods  fol- 

1  Vid.  Bin.  Coiicil.  Tom.  i.  p.  17,  A.      [On  the  character  and 
authority  of  these  Canons,  see  Bp.  Beveridge's  '  Codex  Canonum 
Eccles.  Primitivae  Vindicatus'.j 

2  In  Concil.NicBcn.  can.  vr. ;  Tom.  I.  p.  20. 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  219 

lowed  these  Canons  of  the  Apostles,  appointing  that 
every  Bishop  acknowledge  suum  primum  their  Chief  Canons 

.  Apostolical 

and  Metropolitan,  and  do  nothing  without  their  own  allowed  by 
Diocese  ;   but  rather,  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  ac-  Nice  and 
cording  to  the  Canons  (understand,  saith  Binius,  those 
thirty-five  and  thirty-six  of  the  Apostles),  must  govern 
the  Churches  of  Egypt;  the  Bishop  of  the  East,  the 
Eastern  Churches.    The  Ephesine  Synod  also  saith,  '  it 
is  besides  the  Canons  of  the  Apostles  that  the  Bishop 
of  Antioch   should   ordain   in   the   provinces   of  Cy- 
prus,' &c." 

Hence  it  is  plain,  that  according  to  the  Apostles' 
Canons,  interpreted  and  allowed  as  authentic  (so  far 
at  least)  by  the  Synods  of  Nice  and  Ephesus,  the 
Metropolitan  was  Primate  or  chief  over  the  Churches 
within  his  provinces,  and  that  he  as  such  (exclusive 
of  all  foreign  superior  power)  was  to  govern  and 
ordain  within  his  own  provinces  ;  —  not  consonant  to, 
but  directly  against,  the  pretended  supremacy  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome. 

But  let  us  consult  the  Canons  to  which  Binius 
refers,  and  the  matter  is  plainer. 


CANONS  APOSTOLICAL. 

FT1HERE  is  nothing  in  the  Canons  of  the  Apostles 
-L    to  our  purpose,  but  what  we  find  in  Canons  35 
and  36  ;    or    in  the   reddition   (as    Binius    gives  it), 
Canons  33  and  34. 

Tows   eVtcTKOTTovs,   K.-r.X.1      'Let  the   Bishops    of 


1  [Toir    (TTKruonovs    (Kaarov    edvovs    et6Vi/at     ^prf    TOV    tv    avrdis 
KOI  yytiffQai  avrov  <as  K((pa\fit>,  KOI  pijtifv  TI  nparrtiv  irfpirrov 


220  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

every  nation  know,'  (or  they  ought  to  know),  '  who 
among  them  is  accounted  (or  is)  chief;  and  esteem 
him  ws  K€(J)a\t)v,  ut  caput ;  and  do  nothing  difficult, 
aut  magni  momenti,  prceter  ejus  conscientiam  vel  senten- 
tiam.'  But  what  if  the  matter  were  too  hard  for  the 
Primate,  is  no  direction  given  to  go  to  the  infallible 
chair  at  Rome  ?  Here  was  indeed  a  proper  place  for 
it,  but  not  a  word  of  that. 

In  the  thirty-sixth  (alias  thirty-fourth),  it  is  added  *, 
'  that  a  Bishop  should  not  dare  to  ordain  any  beyond 
the  bounds  of  his  own  jurisdiction  ;'  but  neither  of 
these  Canons  concern  the  Pope,  unless  they  signify 
that  the  Pope  is  not  Head  of  all  Churches,  and  hath 
not  power  in  any  place  but  within  the  Diocese  of 
Rome ;  or  that  Binius  was  not  faithful  in  leaving  out 
the  word  KeffiaXq  (or  Head),  in  his  Note  upon  these 
Canons. 

§  II. 

NICENE  COUNCIL— FIRST  GENERAL— BELLARMINE'S 
EVASION. 

WE  find  nothing  in  the  true  Canons  of  the  Nicene 
Synod  that  looks   our  way,   except  Canons   6 
and  7.      They  are  thus2:    Ta  ap-^aia,  K.T.\.     "Let 

avt v  Tfjs  fKeivov  yva>p.r)s,  K.  T.  X.  Patres  Apostol.  ed.  Coteler.  Tom.  i. 
p.  442 ;  ed.  Anvterp.  1698.  The  silence  of  the  early  church  re- 
specting the  Papal  Supremacy  is  very  forcibly  stated  by  Barrow, 
Suppos.  v. ;  Works,  Vol.  I.  pp.  616,  et  seqq.  ed.  1716.] 

1  [Al.   can.  XXVIII.     'Eiri&KOTrov  /i>)  ro\pav    f£a>    TOIV  eavrov    opa>v 
\fiporovias   TTOici<rdat    (Is   ras  JJ.T)  viroKfifjitvas   aura  TroXetr,    K.  T.  X.] 

2  [To   dpxala    fdtj  Kparfira),     ra   tv   Alyinrrta    teal    \ifivy    na\    Iltv- 
TanoXfi,    totTTf    TOV  ' A.\(£av?if>(ias   (TTiaKOTrov   -navruiv   rovratv   t\(iv  rf)i> 
i$-ovcriav.    (midr/   KO\  rw    tv  rfj   'Ptajirj    JntaKorrq)   TOVTO   <rvi>ijd(s   eVrti/. 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  221 

ancient  customs  be  kept  through  Egypt,  Libya,  and  Canon  vi. 
Pentapolis  ;  so  as  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  may  have 
power  over  all  these,  because  also  (eireira  /cai)  the 
like  custom  is  for  the  Bishop  of  the  city  of  Rome 
(TOVTO  crvvtjOes  CGTIV) ;  as  likewise  at  Antioch  and 
other  provinces  let  the  privileges  be  kept  in  their 
own  Churches."  But  suppose  differences  arise,  is  no 
liberty  or  remedy  provided  by  going  to  Rome  ?  No 
more  than,  if  differences  arise  in  the  Roman  Church, 
they  may  have  remedy  from  any  other : — a  remedy  is 
indeed  provided  by  the  Canon1,  '  If  two  or  three  do 
contradict,  Kpare^ru)  rj  ru>v  TrXeiovwv  \|/^0os  (not  go  to 
Rome,  but  '  let  the  major  vote  carry  it.') 

In  the  seventh  Canon,  custom  and  tradition  both  Canon  vu. 
are  the  grounds  upon  which  the  Council  confirmed 
the  like  privilege  of  the  Church  of  Hierusalem2:  "  Be- 
cause custom  and  ancient  tradition  obtain  that  the 
Bishop  of  J^lia  should  be  honoured,  let  him  have  the 
consequence  of  honour,"  with  a  salvo  *  for  the  proper 
dignity  of  the  Metropolis ;' — but  not  a  word  of  Rome. 

Note  that  in  Canon  vi.  the  power  of  the  Alex- 
andrian Bishop  is  grounded  upon  ancient  custom — 
'  antiqua  consuetudo  servetur,'  and  not  upon  the  con- 
cession of  the  Roman  Bishop,  as  Bellarmine  would 


o/xotW  8e  Koi  Kara  TTJV  Aj/no^eiui/  KU\  tv  rats  aXXais  firapxiais,  ra 
TTf>f(T^fla  cra^eadui  rals  fKK\r)ariais,  K.  T.  X.  Concil.  ed.  Labb.  Tom. 
II.  32.] 

1  ['E«i>  p.ev  rot  rr)  Koivf)  iravruv  V"/0w  evXoya  ova-rj,  /cat  *cara  navova 
(KK\«ria<mKov,    8vo   TI    rpds    81    oiKfiav   (friXoveiKtav    dvriXf-yuai,    Kpa- 
T(IT<O   r)   rmv  7r\fi6i>u)v   ^f}(f)os.      Ibid.] 

2  ^EnftSf)    (Tvvridfia    KtKpaTrjKf    not    TrapaSocrts    ap^at'a,    worf    TOV 
tv    "AtXt'a    eVto-KOTroi/   Tt/xao-^at,    e^e'rco    rtjv   axokovdiav    TTJS    Tipfjs,    ry 

<r<i)£op.tvov   TOV  oiKfiov  d^tw/iaToy.      Can.  vil.    Ibid.] 


222 


UNIVERSAL  PASTOR. 


[CHAP.  XIX. 


force  it ;  and  that  the  like  manner  or  custom  of 
Rome  is  but  another  example  of  the  same  thing,  as 
Antioch  was  and  the  rest  of  the  provinces : — but 
this  ungrammatical  and  illogical  evasion  was  put  off 
before1. 

§  III. 

COUNCIL  OF   CONSTANTINOPLE— SECOND  GENERAL— 
A.D.  381. 

THE  next  Council,  admired  by  Justinian2  as  one 
of  the  Gospels,  is  that  famous  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople adorned  with  one  hundred  and  fifty  Fa- 
thers. Hath  this  made  any  better  provision  for  the 
Pope's  supremacy  ?  Certainly  no  :  for  the  very  first 
Canon3  chargeth  us  not  to  despise  the  faith  of  the 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  Fathers  in  the  Synod  of 
Nice,  which  ought  to  be  held  firm  and  inviolate. 

The  second  Canon4  forbids  the  confusion  of  Dio- 
ceses, and  therefore  enjoins  (/caret  TOI)?  Kavovas)  the 
rules  of  the  Apostles  and  Nicene  Fathers  to  be  kept : 
"the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  must  govern  them  in 
Egypt  only ;"  and  so  the  rest,  as  are  there  mentioned 
more  particularly  than  in  the  Nicene  Canons. 

In  the  third  is  reinforced  the  Canon  of  the  former 
Council  against  ordinations  by  Bishops  out  of  their 
own  jurisdictions ;  and  adds  this  reason,  that  casts  no 
countenance  upon  any  foreign  jurisdiction5:  "It  is 

1  [See  above,  p.  37.]  2  [See  above,  p.  218.] 

3  Concil.  ed.  Bin.  Tom.  i.  p.  660;  [ed.  Labb.  Tom.  n.  946,  E.] 

4  [Concil.  ed.  Labb.   Tom.  n.  947,  A:  Tbv  ^v  ' AXegavSpeias  «ri- 

(TKOTTOV    TO.     fV    'AiyVTTTW     pOPOV     OlKOVOfJLfiv,     K.  T.  A.] 

5  [.  .  .  fvftr)\ov  <os   TO.   naff  eKacrrrjv   firap-^iav  ff    rrjs  f  Trapping  (rvv- 
ofios  8ioiK^<rtt,,  Kara  ra  tv  Ntwua  <api<Tp.fva.     This  is  in  Labbe  a  por- 
tion of  Canon  n.  ubi  supra,  B.] 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  223 

manifest  that  the  proper  provincial  Synod  ought  to 
administer  and  govern  all  things  within  their  peculiar 
provinces,  according  as  was  defined  at  Nicaea." 

This  third  Canon  honours  the  Bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople next  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  Binius 
renders  TCI  Trpecrfieia  TW  Ttfirjs  yuera  TOV  T^S  'PwfjLijs 
eTnWoTToi/.  But  Binius  is  very  angry  that  such  a  Canon 
is  found  there,  and  urgeth  many  reasons1  against  it; 
and  therefore  we  shall  conclude  that,  as  none  of  the 
rest,  so  neither  doth  this  Canon,  confer  the  universal 
government  of  the  Church  upon  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

§  IV. 
COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS— THIRD  GENERAL-A.D.  431. 

THE    third   General   Council,  whose    Canons  Jus- 
tinian2 passed  into  Laws,  is  that  of  Ephesus ;  and 
this  so  far  abhors  from  the  grant,  that  it  is  a  plain 
and  zealous  contradicter  of  the  Pope's  pretensions. 

In  Act  the  seventh,  it  is  agreed3  against  the 
invasion  of  the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  that  the  Cyprian 
Prelates  shall  hold  their  rights  untouched  and  unvio- 
lated,  according  to  the  Canons  of  the  holy  Fathers 
(before  mentioned)  and  the  ancient  custom,  ordaining 
their  own  Bishops.  'And  let  the  same  be  observed  in 
other  dioceses,  and  in  all  provinces,  that  no  Bishop 
occupy  another  province  (or  subject  it  by  force),  which 
formerly  and  from  the  beginning  was  not  under  his 
power  or  his  predecessors' :  or  if  he  have  done  so 

1  Concil.  Tom.  i.  p.  672.  [Labbe,  Tom.  n.  947,  c.] 

2  [Above,  p.  218.] 

3  [See  the  decree  at  length  in  Labbe,  Tom.  in.  802.] 


224  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

let  him  restore  it,  that  the  Canons  of  the  Fathers 
be  not  transgressed,  nor  the  pride  of  worldly  power 
creep  into  the  Church,... nor  Christian  liberty  be  lost. 
Therefore  it  hath  pleased  the  holy  Synod,  that  every 
province  enjoy  its  rights  and  customs  unviolated, 
which  it  had  from  the  beginning;' — e£  apxw  avwOev, 
twice  repeated,  whereby  we  are  to  learn  a  very  great 
rule,  that  the  bounds  of  primacies  were  settled  very 
early,  before  this  Council  or  any  other  general  Coun- 
cil before  this,  even  at  the  beginning ;  and  that  those 
bounds  ought  to  be  observed  to  the  end,  according  to 
the  Canons  of  the  Fathers  and  ancient  custom ;  and 
consequently,  that  such  as  are  invaders  of  others' 
rights  are  bound  to  make  restitution.  Now  it  is  evi- 
dent we  were  a  free  province  in  England  in  the  begin- 
ning, and  when  St  Augustine  came  from  Rome  to 
invade  our  liberties,  it  is  evident  this  Council  gave 
the  Pope  no  power  or  privilege  to  invade  us ; — yea, 
that  what  power  the  Pope  got  over  us  in  after  times, 
was  a  manifest  violation  of  the  rights  we  had  from 
the  beginning,  as  also  of  the  Canons  of  the  ancient 
Fathers,  in  the  three  mentioned  sacred  and  general 
Councils  of  Nice,  Constantinople,  and  Ephesus, — all 
grounded  upon  the  ancienter  Canons  called  the  Apos- 
tles'. 

Lastly,  such  usurpers  were  always  under  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  Canon  to  restore  and  quit  their  incroach- 
ments ;  and  consequently  the  Britannic  Churches  were 
always  free  to  vindicate  and  reassume  their  rights  and 
liberties,  as  they  worthily  did  in  Henry  VIII. 


CHAP.  XIX.]  rXIVEF-SAL  PASTOR.  225 


COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON—  FOURTH  GENERAL— 
A.D.  451—  S.  W.'s  GLOSS. 

rpHERE    is    little   hope   that   this    Council    should 

J-   afford  the  Pope  any  advantage,  seeing  it  begins 

with  'the  confirmation  of  all  the  Canons  made  by  the  Canon  i. 

Fathers  in  every  Synod  before  that  time  l  ;'  and  con- 

sequently of  those  that  we  have  found  in  prejudice  to 

his  pretensions  among  the  rest. 

The  Ninth  Canon  enjoins,  '  upon  differences  be-  Canon  ix. 
twixt  clerks,  that  the  cause  be  heard  before  the 
proper  Bishop  ;  betwixt  a  Bishop  and  a  clerk,  before 
the  provincial  Synod  ;  betwixt  a  Bishop  or  clerk  and 
the  Metropolitan,  before  TOV  e^ap-^ov  rrj<;  SioiKijaecos,  or 
the  See  of  the  royal  city  of  Constantinople2.'  To  the 
same  effect  we  read  in  Canon  17,  'If  any  one  be  injured  Canon 

\  -.  /  XVII. 

by  his  Bishop  or  Metropolitan,  Trapd  rip  eirap-^io  T»/S 
$iotK»ycreoue,  »J  T<to  KwcrTavTivoviroXews  Opovia  ciica^eaOw3,' 
K.  T.  X, 

But  where  is  any  provision  made  for  remedy  at 
Rome  ?  Indeed  that  could  not  consist  with  the  sense 
of  this  Synod,  who  would  not  endure  the  supremacy, 
or  so  much  as  the  superiority  of  Rome  above  Con- 
stantinople. 

This  is  evident  in  Canon  28  :  '  The  Fathers  gave  Canon 
privilege  to  the  See  of  old  Rome,  &a  TO  /3ao-iXeu«i/ 

TroXiv  eKcivriv,  (saith  the  Canon),  and  for  the  same 


1  [Toi/s  rrapa  TOJV  ayia>v  irarfpatv  naff  fKacrrrjv  (rvvoSov  a^pt  TOV  vvv 
fKTtdfvras  Kavovas  Kpnrelv  f8iKat<o(rafj.€v   Can.  I.  ;  apud  Labb.  Concil., 
Tom.  iv.  755.] 

2  [Ibid.  759.  P.]  s  [Ibid.  703.  c.] 

15 


22G  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

reason  an  hundred  and  fifty  Bishops  gave  rd  'iau 
,  equal  privileges  to  the  seat  of  new  Rome ; 
Kpivavres,  rightly  judging  that  that  city,  that 
hath  the  empire  and  the  senate,  should  enjoy  equal 
privileges  with  old  royal  Rome,  /ecu  ei/  roTv  eKK 
Ti/co?s,  ft)?  eKeivrjv,  /uLeya\vve<76ai  TrpaynaGi,  cevrepav 


s.  w.'s  Now  to  what  purpose  doth  S.  W.  (to  Dr  Hammond) 

Gloss. 

trifle  on  the  Canon,  and  tell  us  that  these  privileges 
were  only  'honorary  pomps2;'  when  the  Canon  adds  'in 
ecclesiastical  matters,'  and  names  one,  '  the  ordination 
of  Bishops  and  Metropolitans  within  themselves,  as 
before  was  declared  by  the  divine  Canons3.'  We  con- 
clude that  this  bar  against  the  Pope's  universal  Pas- 
torship will  never  be  removed. 

These  are  the  first  four  general  Councils,  honoured 
by  Justinian  as  the  four  Gospels,  to  which  he  gave 
the  title  and  force  of  Laws4.  By  which  all  Popes  are 
bound5,  by  solemn  oath,  to  rule  the  Church ;  yet  we 
find  not  one  word  in  any  of  them  for  the  Pope's  pre- 
tended universal  Pastorship :  yea  in  every  one  of 
them  we  have  found  so  much  and  so  directly  against 
it,  that  as  they  give  him  no  power  to  govern  the 
whole  Church ;  so  by  swearing  to  observe  them  in 
such  government  as  the  Canons  deny  him,  he  swears 
to  a  contradiction  as  well  as  to  the  ruin  of  his  own 
pretensions. 

1  [Can.  i.  apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  iv.  770,  B.] 

2  [See  Hammond's  'Answer  to  Schism  Disarmed,'  chap.    iv. 
sect.  iv.  ;  Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  89,  90.] 

3  [Labbe,  ubi  supra,  770,  c.]  <  [See  above,  p.  218.] 
5  [See  above,  p.  61.] 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  227 

We  conclude  from  the  premises,  that  now,  seeing  Argument. 
all  future  Councils  seem  to  build  upon  the  Nicene 
Canons  (as  that  upon  the  Apostles'),  if  the  Canons  of 
Nice  do  indeed  limit  the  power  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  or  suppose  it  to  have  limits,  if  his  cause  be 
tried  by  the  Councils,  it  must  needs  be  desperate. 

Now  if  those  Canons  suppose  bounds  to  belong  to 
every  Patriarchate,  they  suppose  the  like  to  Rome : 
but  it  is  plain,  that  the  bounds  are  given  by  those 
Canons  to  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  the  reason 
is,  because  this  is  also  customary  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  Now  it  is  not  reasonable  to  say,  Alexandria 
must  have  limits  because  Rome  hath,  if  Rome  have 
no  limits. 

Pope  Nicolas  himself  so  understood  it,  whatever 
S.  W.  did  :  "  The  Nicene  Synod,"  saith  he,  "  conferred 
no  increase  on  Rome,  but  rather  took  from  Rome  an 
example  particularly  what  to  give  to  the  Church  of 
Alexandria1." 

Whence  Dr  Hammond  strongly  concludes,  that 
'  if  at  the  making  of  the  Nicene  Canons  Rome  had 
bounds,  it  must  needs  follow  by  the  Ephesine  Canon, 
that  those  bounds  must  be  at  all  times  observed,  in 
contradiction  to  the  universal  Pastorship  of  that  See  V 

The  matter  is  ended,  if  we  compare  the  other 
Latin  version  of  the  Nicene  Canon  with  the  Canon  as 
before  noted : — 


1  ['Nicsena  synodus  Romanse  ecclesiae  nullum  contylit  incre- 
mcntum,  sed  potius  ex  ejus  forma  quod  Alexandrinsc  ecclesice  tri- 
bueret,  particulariter  sumpsit  exemplum/  Nichol.  i.  Epist.  viii.] 

2  ['Answer  to  Schism  Disarmed,'  chap.   iv.  sect.  vi. ;   Works, 
Vol.  n.  p.  95.] 

15 — 2 


228  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

"  Antiqui  moris  est  ut  urbis  Romae  Episcopus 
habeat  principatum,  ut  suburbicana  loca,  et  omnem 
provinciam  sua  sollicitudine  gubernet ;  quse  vero  apud 
Egyptum  sunt,  Alexandrinse  Episcopus  omnem  habeat 
sollicitudinem  :  similiter  autem  et  circa  Antiochiam 
et  in  caeteris  provinciis  privilegia  propria  serventur 
metropolitanis  Ecclesiis." 

Whence  it  is  evident,  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
then  had  a  distinct  Patriarchate  as  the  rest  had ;  and 
that  whatever  primacy  might  be  allowed  him  be- 
yond his  province,  it  could  not  have  any  real  power 
over  the  other  provinces  of  Alexandria,  &c.  And  it  is 
against  the  plain  sense  of  the  rule,  that  the  antiquus 
mos  should  signify  the  custom  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome's 
permission  of  government  to  the  other  Patriarchs,  as 
Bellarmine  feigneth1.  This  edition  we  have  in  the 
'  Bibliotheca  Juris  Canonici '  of  Christopher  Justel  and 
Voel,  Tom.  i.  p.  284. 

§  VI. 

SECOND  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE— THE  FIFTH 
GENERAL— 165  BISHOPS— A.D.  553. 

BARONIUS  and  Binius2  both  affirm  that  this  was 
a  general  Council,  and  so  approved  by  all  Popes, 
predecessors   and   successors   of  St  Gregory,  and  St 
Gregory  himself. 

The  cause  was,  Pope  Agapetus  had  condemned 
Anthimus3;  the  matter  was  afterwards  ventilated  in 

1  [See  above,  p.  37.] 

2  Baron,  ad  an.  553,  ccxxiv.  Bin.  Not.  in  Concil.  Const.  [Tom. 
iv.  p.  374.] 

3  [For  the  particulars,  see  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  xxxri.  sect. 
52,  54.] 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  229 

the  Council.  Now  where  was  the  Pope's  supremacy  ? 
We  shall  see  immediately. 

After  Agapetus  succeeded  Vigilius :  when  the 
Council  condemned  the  Tria  Capitula1,  Pope  Vigilius 
would  defend  them ;  but  how  did  he  carry  it,  in  faith 
or  fact  ?  Did  the  Council  submit  to  his  judgment  or 
authority  ?  No  such  thing,  but  quite  contrary ;  the 
Council  condemned  the  Tria  Capitula,  and  ended. 
The  Pope  for  not  consenting,  but  opposing  the  Coun- 
cil, is  banished  by  the  Emperor  Justinian.  Then 
Vigilius  submits  and  confirms  the  sentence  of  the 
Council,  and  so  is  released  from  banishment.  This  is 
enough,  out  of  both  Baronius2  and  Binius3. 

The  sum  is,  "  we  condemn  (say  they4,  as  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  very  text)  all  that  have  defended  the 
Tria  Capitula ;"  but  Vigilius  (say  the  historians)  de- 
fended the  Tria  Capitula ;  therefore  was  Vigilius  the 
Pope  condemned  by  this  Council : — such  authority 
they  gave  him. 

§  VII. 

THIRD  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE,  OF  289  BISHOPS 

—SIXTH  GENERAL— A.  D.  680— SECOND  NICENE 

COUNCIL— SEVENTH  GENERALS— of  375 

BISHOPS— A.  D.   787. 

ELLARMINE    acknowledgeth   these   to    be  the 
sixth  and  seventh  general  Councils  ;    and  both 


B 


1  [These  were  certain  writings  of  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia,  Ibas 
of  Edessa,  and  Theodoret,  which  supported  the  errors  of  Nestorius.] 

2  Ad  an.  553,  ccxxra.  3  [ubi  supra.] 
•»  [Vid.  Concil.  ed.  Labb.  Tom.  v.  568,  c.] 

6  [That  this  Council  cannot  properly  be  called  oacumenical,  is 
proved  by  Mr  Palmer,  'Treatise  on  the  Church,'  Part  iv.  chap.  x. 
sect,  iv.] 


UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

these  he  acknowledgeth  did  condemn  Pope  Honorius 
for  an  heretic1. 

For  Bellarmine  to  urge  that  these  Councils  were 
deceived  in  their  judgment  touching  his  opinion,  is 
not  to  the  point ;  we  are  not  disputing  now,  whether 
a  Pope  may  be  a  heretic  in  a  private  or  public  capa- 
city, in  which  the  Councils  now  condemned  him, — 
though  he  seems  to  be  a  bold  man,  to  prefer  his  own 
bare  conjecture  a  thousand  years  after,  about  a  matter 
of  fact,  before  the  judgment  of  two  general  Councils, 
consisting  of  664  Bishops,  when  the  cause  was  fresh, 
witnesses  living,  and  all  circumstances  visibly  before 
their  eyes. — But  our  question  is,  whether  these  Coun- 
cils did  either  give  to  the  Pope  as  such,  or  acknow- 
ledge in  him,  an  uncontrollable  authority  over  the 
whole  Church  ?  The  answer  is  short ;  they  took  that 
power  to  themselves,  and  condemned  the  Pope  for 
heresy  as  they  also2  did  Sergius  of  Constantinople. 

$  VIII. 

COUNCIL    OF   CONSTANTINOPLE— EIGHTH  GENERAL— 
383  BISHOPS — A.D.  869. 

HOW  did  this  eighth  general  Council  recognize  the 
Pope's  supremacy?    Binius  himself  tells  us3,  'this 
Council  condemned  a  custom  of  the  Sabbath-fast  in 
Lent,  and  the  practice  of  it  in  the  Church  of  Rome :' 

1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  iv.  c.  xi.J 

2  [See  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  liv.  XL.  s.  22.] 

3  [Tom.  v.  p.  338,  F;  cd.  Paris.  1636.     Yet  the   Canon  hero 
mentioned  is  not  one  of  the  Council  recognized  in   the  Roman 
Church  as  the  eighth  General,  but  of  the  Council  '  in  Trullo,'  held 
at  Constantinople,  A.D.  691.     The   original  is  as  follows:  'ETmdi? 
fiffiadijKn/j.(v    tv    rfj  'Pou/untW  TToXft   tv    rais   ayiais    rfjs    T((rvnprtK<)(TTTjs 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  231 

and  the  word  is,  'We  will  that  the  Canon  be  observed 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  inconcusse  vires  habeat.' 

It  is  boldly  determined  against  the  mother  Church  ; 
—  Rome  concerned,  reproved,  commanded  !  Where  is 
the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ? 

Rome  would  be  even  with  this  Council,  and  there- 
fore (saith  Surius1)  '  she  receives  not  this  55th  Canon.' 

But  why  must  this  Canon  only  be  rejected  ?  Oh  ! 
it  is  not  to  be  endured  :  that  is  all  the  reason  we  can 
have.  But  was  not  this  a  general  Council  ?  Is  it  not 
one  of  the  eight  sworn  to  by  every  Pope  ?  Is  not  this 
Canon  of  the  same  authority  (as  of  the  Council)  with 
all  the  rest?  Or  is  it  tolerable  to  say,  it  is  not 
authentic,  because  the  Pope  doth  not  receive  it,  and 
he  doth  not  receive  it  because  it  is  against  himself? 
'  Qui  matrem  Ecclesiarum  omnium  Romanam  Ecclesiam 
reprehendit,  non  recipitur,'  saith  Surius2. 

These  are  the  first  eight  general  Councils,  allowed 
by  the  Roman  Church  at  this  day.  What  little  excep- 
tions they  would  defend  their  supremacy  with,  against 
all  that  hath  appeared,  are  answered  in  the  '  Post- 
script' at  the  latter  end  of  the  book,  whither  I  refer 
my  readers  for  fuller  satisfaction. 

In  the  mean  time  we  cannot  but  conclude,  —          Conclu- 

sion from 
(1)     That  the  Fathers,  during  eight  hundred  and  all. 

seventy  years  after  Christ,  knew  no  such  thing  as  the 


rois  ravrrjs  o-n/S/Jacri  VtfOTtVttf  rrapa  rfjv  napaboOfiaav  (K 

Ko\ov0iav,  e8o£e  rfj    ayia    (rvv68<a    axrrf    Kparelv   KOI   (TT\   TJJ 
(KK\t)(rtq  aTrapcuTaXfVTtas  TOP  Kavova.  K.  T.  \.   Can.  LV.] 

1  [Quoted  by  Binius,  Concil.  Tom.  v.  p.  421,  col.  2,  E.] 

2  [Ibid.] 


232  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

Pope's  Supremacy  by  Divine  right  or  any  right  at  all, 
seeing  they  opposed  it. 

(2)  That  they  did  not  believe  the  Infallibility  of 
the  Church  of  Rome. 

(3)  That  they  had   no   tradition   of  either  that 
Supremacy  or  Infallibility. 

(4)  That  it  is  vain  to  plead  antiquity  in  the  Fa- 
thers, or  Councils,  or  Primitive  Church,  for  either. 

(5)  That  the  judgment  of  those   eight  general 
Councils  was  at  least  the  judgment  and  faith  of  the 
Church,  not  only  during  their  own  times,  but  till  the 
contrary  should  be  decreed  by  a  following  Council  of 
as  great  authority ;   and  how  long  that  was  after,   I 
leave  to  themselves  to  answer. 

(6)  That  the  Canons  of  those  first  eight  general 
Councils,  being  the  sense  both  of  the  ancient  and  the 
professed  faith  of  the  present  Church  of  Rome,  the 
Pope's  authority  stands  condemned  by  the  Catholic 
Church   at  this  day,  by  the  ancient  Church  and  the 
present  Church  of  Rome  herself,  as  she  holds  com- 
munion (at  least  in  profession)  with  the  ancient. 

(7)  That  this  was  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
in  opposition  to  the  pretended  Supremacy  of  the  Pope, 
long  after  the  first  eight  general  Councils,  is  evident, 
by  the  plain  sense  of  it,  in  the  said  point,  declared  by 
several   Councils   in   the   ages   following,    as   appears 
both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church. — A  word    of 
both. 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  233 

$  IX. 

THE  LATIN  CHURCH—  COUNCILS  OF  CONSTANCE  AND 

BASLE. 


TT^HE  Council  of  Constance  in  Germany,  long  after,  Constance. 
-i-  of  almost  a  thousand  Fathers,  A.D.  1414  —  1418, 
say1,  'they  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  a 
general  Council,  representing  the  whole  Church,  and 
having  immediate  power  from  Christ,  whereunto  obe- 
dience is  due  from  all  persons,  both  for  faith  and 
reformation,  whether  in  the  head  or  members.'  This 
was  expressly  confirmed  by  Pope  Martin  V.  to  be  held 
inviolable  in  matters  of  faith2.  Their  great  reason 
was,  '  the  Pope  is  not  Head  of  the  Church  by  Divine 
ordinance  ;'  as  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  said3,  a 
thousand  years  before. 

Now  where  was  necessary  union  and  subjection  to 
the  Pope  ?  Where  was  his  supremacy  jure  Divino  ? 
Where  was  tradition,  infallibility,  or  the  faith  of  the 
present  Church,  for  the  Pope's  authority  ? 

The  Council  of  Basle,  A.D.  1431,  decreed4  as  the  Basle. 
Council  of  Constance  ;  Pope  Eugenius5  would  dissolve 
them  ;  the  Council  commands  the  contrary,  and  sus- 

1  [Vid.   Concil.  ed.  Labb.  Tom.  xn.    19,  et  alib.     The  fullest 
history  of  this  Council  is  that  of  Von  der  Hardt,  Magnum  O3cum. 
Constant.  Concil.  ed.  Francfort,  1700.J 

2  [The  bull  of  Martin  V.  confirming  the  acts  of  the  Council  was 
issued  between  the  forty-second  and  forty-third  sessions.] 

3  [See  above,  p.  225.] 

<  [Apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  xn.  477,  478,  619.] 
5  [See  the  particulars  in  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccles.   A.D.  1431.     In 
1437  Eugenius  attempted  by  a  bull  to  translate  the  Council  to 
Ferrara  ;  this  attempt  was,  however,  ineffectual,  and  the  sessions 
were  continued  at  Basle  till  1443.] 


234  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

pend  the  Pope ;  concluding,  that  whoever  shall  ques- 
tion their  power  therein  is  an  heretic.  The  Pope 
pronounceth  them  schismatics ;  in  the  end,  the  Pope 
did  yield,  and  not  dissolve  the  Council. 

This  was  the  judgment  of  the  Latin  Church  above 
1400  years  after  Christ,  and  indeed  to  this  day,  of  the 
true  Church  of  France1 ;  and  in  Henry  the  Eighth's 
time,  of  England, — as  Gardiner  said2,  '  the  Pope  is 
not  a  Head  by  dominion,  but  order ;  his  authority  is 
none  with  us  ;  we  ought  not  to  have  to  do  with  Rome,' 
— the  common  sense  of  all  in  England. 

Bellarmine  saith3,  that  '  the  Pope's  subjection  to 
general  Councils  is  inconsistent  with  the  Supreme 
Pastorship.'  '  It  is  repugnant  to  the  Primacy  of  Saint 
Peter,'  saith  Gregory  de  Valentia1 ;  yet  nothing  is 
more  evident  than  that  general  Councils  did  exercise 
authority  over  Popes,  deposing  them,  and  disposing  of 
their  Sees,  as  the  Council  of  Constance  did  three5 
together ;  and  always  made  Canons  in  opposition  to 
their  pretensions. 

Yea,  it  is  certain  that  a  very  great  number6,  if  not 
the  greater,  of  the  Roman  Church  itself  were  ever  of 

1  [i.  c.  of  the  Gallican  school  as  represented  by  Bossuet.] 

2  [See  his  Treatise,  '  de  Vcra  Obedientia,'  in  Brown's  Append, 
to  the  '  Fasciculus  Rerum,'  p.  812.] 

3  De  Conciliorum  Auctor.  Lib.  n.  c.  17. 

4  Analys.  Fidei  Cathol.  Lib.  vm.  c.  14. 

s  [viz.  John  XXIII.,  Gregory  XIL,  Benedict  XIIL] 
6  [e.  g.  It  was  determined  in  the  Articles  of  1682,  by  the  general 
assembly  of  the  Gallican  Church,  that  the  decrees  of  the  synod  of 
Constance,  concerning  the  superiority  of  a  general  Council  to  the 
Pope,  shall  remain  in  full  force.  See  Mr  Palmer's  '  Treatise  on 
the  Church,'  Vol.  n.  p.  207.  3rd  ed.  A  summary  of  the  '  Gallican 
Liberties/  is  given  by  Archbp,  Bramhall,  Works,  Vol.  i.  pp.  225, 
ct  seqq.] 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR,  235 

this  faith,  that  general  Councils  are  superior,  have 
authority  over,  give  laws  unto,  and  may  justly  censure, 
the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Pope  Adrian  VI.1,  and  very  many  other  learned 
Romanists,  declared  this  to  be  their  judgment,  just 
before  or  near  upon  the  time  that  Henry  VIII.  was 
declared  supreme  in  England.  So  much  for  the  Latin 
Church. 

§  X. 

THE  GREEK  CHURCH— AFRICAN  CANONS— SYNOD  OF 

CARTHAGE — OF  ANTIOCH— THE  FAITH  OF 

THE  GREEK  CHURCH  SINCE. 

THAT    the    Greek    Church    understood    the    first 
general  Councils  directly  contrary  to  the  Pope's 
Supremacy,  is  written  with  a  sunbeam  in  several  other 
Councils :  e.  g.      „ 

I.      By  the  '  Canons  of  the  African  Church' 

The  28th  Canon2  forbids  '  all  transmarine  appeals,'  canon 
threatens  such  as  make  them  with  excommunication,  xxv 
makes  order  'that  the  last  appeal  be  to  the  proper 
Primate,  or  a  general  Council.'    To  the  same  effect  is 
the  125th  Canon3;  and  the  Notes  of  Voel4  upon  these  Canon 
Canons   put  it  beyond   question,   that  in   the  trans-  °: 
marine  appeals  they  meant  those  to  Rome  ;  as  it  is 

1  [The  reference  is  most  probably  to  his   Qusest.  dc   Confir- 
mationc,  quoted  by  Hammond,  Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  197.] 

2  [Vid.  Cod.  Canon.  Eccl.  African.,   can.  XXVIH.   apud   Labb. 
Concil.     Tom.  n.  1063,  B.] 

3  [Can.  cxxv. ;  ibid,  1131,  A.] 

4  [Biblioth.  Juris  Canon.]  Tom.  I.  p.  425. 


236  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAI-.  XIX. 

expressed,  '  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  priests  of 
the  Roman  Church. ' 

>H.      Council  of  Antioch. 

This  Council  is  more  plain :  it  saith l,  '  If  any 
Bishop  in  any  crime  be  judged  by  all  the  Bishops  in 
the  province,  he  shall  be  judged  in  no  wise  by  any 
other ;  the  sentence  given  by  the  provincial  Bishops 
shall  remain  firm.'  Thus  the  Pope  is  excluded,  even 
in  the  case  of  Bishops  out  of  his  own  province ;  con- 
trary to  the  great  pretence  of  Bellarmine. 

III.      The  Synods  of  Carthage, 

These  Synods2  confirmed  the  twenty  Canons  of 
Nice,  and  the  Canons  of  the  African  Councils :  and 

Canon        then  in  particular  thev  decreed,  ab  universis  Episcopis 
vm. 

dictum  est,  st  cnminosus  est,  non  aamittatur. 

Again,  if  any  one,  whether  Bishop  or  Presbyter, 
that  is  driven  from  the  Church,  be  received  into  com- 

Canon  ix.  munion  (by  another),  even  he  that  receives  him  is 
held  guilty  of  the  like  crime,  refugientes  sui  Episcopi 
regulare  judicium. 

Canon xn.  Again,  'if  a  Bishop  be  guilty,  when  there  is  no 
Synod,  let  him  be  judged  by  twelve  Bishops,  secundum 

Canon  xx.  statuta  veterum  Conciliorum.' — The  statutes  of  the  an- 
cients knew  no  reserve  for  the  Pope  in  that  case. 

Canon  Further,  'no  clergyman  might  go  beyond  the  seas' 


XXIII. 


1  [Concil.  Antioch.  A.  D.  341,  can.   xv. ;  apud  Labb.    Tom.  n. 
585.     This  council   was  assembled   by  the   Eusebians,  or  Semi- 
Arians.] 

2  [The  decrees  and  canons  arc  in  the  Codex  Can.  Eccl.  African., 
apud  Labb.  Concil.,  Tom.  H.  1049,  et  seqq.] 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  237 

(viz.  to  Rome),  without  the  advice  of  his  Metropolitan, 
and  taking  his  'formatam  vel  commendationem.' 

The  28th  Canon   is    positive,    '  that   Priests   and  Canon 

XXVI II. 

Deacons  shall  not  appeal,  ad  transmarina  judicia'  (viz. 
to  Rome), '  but  to  the  Primates  of  their  own  provinces  :' 
and  they  add,  '  Sicut  et  de  episcopis  scepe  constitutum 
est;'  and  if  any  shall  do  so,  none  in  Africa  shall  receive 
them.  And  in  Canon  125  it  is  renewed ;  adding,  '  the  Canon 
African  Councils,'  to  which  appeals  are  allowed  as  well 
as  to  the  Primates ;  but  still  Rome  is  barred. 

Tlie  Sense  of  the  Greek  Church  since. 

Now  when  did  that  Church  subject  itself  to  Rome 
in  any  case  ?  Our  adversaries  acknowledge  the  early 
contests  betwixt  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches, 
in  the  point  of  Supremacy l ;  where  then  is  the  consent 
of  Fathers,  or  universality  of  time  and  place,  they  use 
to  boast  of? 

Bellarmine  confesseth2,  that  from  381  to  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Florence,  viz.  1058  years,  the  Greek 
Church  disclaimed  subjection  to  the  Pope  and  Church 
of  Rome ;  and  he  confesseth,  they  did  so  in  several 
general  Councils. 

And  he  doth  but  pretend  that  this  Church  sub- 
mitted itself  to  Rome  in  the  Council  of  Florence,  A.  D. 
1439 ;  for  the  contrary  is  evident  in  that  they  would 
not  yield  that  the  Pope  should  choose  them  a  Patri- 
arch, as  Surius  himself  observes3. 

1  [On  the  final  interruption  of  communion  in  1054,  see  Mr 
Palmer's  'Treatise  on  the  Church,'  Part  i.  chap.  ix.  s.  2.] 

2  [Disputat.  Tom.  i.  p.  129,  G;  in  Prsefat.  de  Romano  Pontif.] 

3  [Concil.]  Tom.  iv.  p.  489.      [A  defence  of  the  Greek  Church 
touching  the  council  of  Florence  may  be  seen  in  Bp.  Stillingfleet's 
Vind.  Vol.  i.  pp.  37—70.] 


238  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

So  true  it  is,  that  Maldonate1  and  Prateolus2 
acknowledge  and  record,  the  Greek  Church  always 
disliked  the  supreme  dignity  of  the  Pope,  and  would 
never  obey  his  decrees. 

To  conclude, — the  law  of  the  Greeks  hath  always 
been  against  the  Pope's  Supremacy ;  the  fundamental 
law  was  a  prohibition  of  appeals  to  Rome ;  therefore 
that  Church  acknowledged  no  absolute  subjection  to 
Rome.  (2)  They  excommunicate  all  African  priests 
appealing  to  Rome ;  therefore  they  held  no  necessity 
of  union  with  Rome.  (3)  They  excommunicate  all 
such  as  should  but  think  it  lawful  to  appeal  to  Rome  ; 
therefore  they  had  no  faith  of  the  necessity  of  either 
union  or  subjection  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 

Enough,  to  the  Pope's  prejudice,  from  the  Coun- 
cils of  all  sorts.  We  must,  in  the  foot  of  the  account, 
mind  our  adversaries  that  we  have  found  no  colour 
for  the  pretence  of  a  grant,  from  any  one  general 
Council,  of  the  Pope's  authority ;  much  less  over  the 
Church  of  England  :  which  their  plea  from  the  Canons 
expressly  requires  at  their  hand. 

For  my  Lord  Bramhall3,  with  invincible  reason, 
affirms,  '  We  were  once  a  free  Patriarchate,  inde- 
pendent on  any  other,  and  according  to  the  Council 
of  Ephesus,  every  province  should  enjoy  its  ancient 
rights,  pure  and  inviolate ;  and  that  no  Bishop  should 
occupy  any  province  which  did  not  belong  to  him 
from  the  beginning ;  and  if  no  true  general  Council 

1  Maldonatus,  Comment,  in  Matth.  x.  2;  [Tom.  i.  p.  298;  ed. 
Mogunt.  1840.] 

2  Prateolus,  de  Vitis,  Sectis  etc.  Hscreticorunr,  [pp.  198,  199 ; 
ed.  Colon.  1569.] 

3  [Just  Vindication,  Part  I.  Disc.  ii. :  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  158.] 


CHAP  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  239 

hath  ever  since  subjected  Britain  under  the  Roman 
Court, — then  (saith  he)  the  case  is  clear,  that  Rome 
can  pretend  no  right  over  Britain,  without  their  own 
consent,  nor  any  further,  nor  for  any  longer  time, 
than  they  are  pleased  to  oblige  themselves.' 

We  must  expect,  therefore,  some  better  evidence 
of  such  grant  to  the  Pope,  and  such  obligation  upon 
England,  by  the  Canons  of  some  truly  general  Coun- 
cil ;  and  we  may  still  expect  it,  notwithstanding  the 
Canons  of  Sardica : — which  yet  shall  be  considered, 
for  it  is  their  faint  colour  of  antiquity. 


$  XI. 

THE  SARDICAN  CANONS— NO  GRANT  FROM  THE  MAT- 
TER, MANNER,  OR  AUTHORITY— NO  APPENDIX  TO 
COUNCIL  OF  NICE— ZOSIMUS  HIS  FORGERY  NEVER 
RATIFIED,  NOR  THOUGHT  UNIVERSAL— AFTER  CON- 
TRADICTED BY  COUNCILS. 

THE  Pope  at  length  usurped  the  title,  and  pre- 
tended the  power  of  Supreme,  and  the  Canons 
in  time  obtained  the  name  of  the  Pope's  decrees ;  but 
the  question  is,  what  general  Council  gave  him  either  ? 
Doctor  Stillingfleet  observes1,  that  'nothing  is 
more  apparent,  than  that  when  Popes  began  to  perk 
up,  they  pleaded  nothing  but  some  Canons  of  the 
Church  for  what  they  did, — then  their  best  and  only 
plea,  when  nothing  of  Divine  right  was  heard  of;  as 
Julius  to  the  Oriental  Bishops;  Zosimus  to  the  African, 
and  so  others  :' — but  still  what  Canons  ? 

i  [Vindication,  Vol.  n.  p.  207.] 


240  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

The  Romanist1,  against  Archbishop  Laud,  argues 
thus :  '  It  was  ever  held  lawful  to  appeal  to  Rome 
from  all  parts  i  therefore  the  Pope  must  be  supreme 
Judge.  This  (saith  he)  is  evidenced  by  the  Sardican 
Canons,  accounted  anciently  an  Appendix  to  the 
Council  of  Nice.'  This  he  calls  an  unanswerable 
argument. 

But  it  is  more  than  answered,  if  we  consider 
either  the  matter,  or  the  manner,  or  the  authority,  of 
these  Canons. 

I.  The  matter  said  to  be  granted  appears  in  the 
words  themselves.     It  is  said2,   '  If  it  seem  good  to 
you,  let  us  honour  the  memory  of  Saint  Peter,  and  by 
those  Bishops  that  are  judges,  let  it  be  written  to 
Julius  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  by  the  next  Bishops  of 
the   province,  if  need   be,   let  the  judgment  be   re- 
voked.' 

But  (1)  here  is  no  grant  so  much  as  of  appeal, 
only  of  a  review.  (2)  It  is  not  pretended  to  be 
according  to  any  former  Canons.  (3)  The  judgment 
is  to  be  revoked  by  a  Council  of  Bishops  chosen  for 
the  purpose.  (4)  The  request  seems  to  terminate  in 
the  person  of  Julius,  and  not  to  extend  to  his  succes- 
sors ;  for  else  why  should  it  be  said  to  Julius  Bishop 
of  Rome,  and  not  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  absolutely  ? 

II.  The  manner  of  the  motion  spoils  all,  '  if  it 
please  you.'    Did  the  Universal  Pastorship  then  lie  at 
the  feet,  or  depend  upon  the  pleasure,  of  this  Coun- 
cil ?    Did  no  Canons  evidence  the  Pope's  power,  and 

1  [i.  e.  T.  C.  in  the  Labyrinthus  Cantuar.,  p.  193.] 

2  [Concil.  Sardic.    can.   HI.,  apud  Labb.  Tom.   629,   A.      The 
canon  is  quoted  at  length,  p.  63.  note  1.] 


CHAP.  XIX.]  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  241 

right  till  then,  eleven  years  after  the  death  of  Con- 
stantine  ?  Besides  how  unworthily  was  it  said,  '  let  us 
honour  the  memory  of  Saint  Peter ;' — -.did  the  Pope's 
succession  of  Saint  Peter  depend  upon  their  pleasure 
too? 

III.    But  lastly,  the  main  exception  is  against  the       3. 
authority  of  this  Council ;  or,  at  least,  of  this  Canon, 
as  Cusanus  questions1. 

(1)  It  is  certain  these  Canons  are  no  Appendix  to  NoAppen- 

.  -It*     -VT«  1  1    *     •  1  dlX     tO  t'1C 

the  Council  ot  Nice,  wherein  their  strength  is  pre-  Nicene 
tended  to  consist ;  though  Zosimus  fraudulently  sent 
them2  under  that  name  to  the  African  Bishops — 
which  can  never  be  excused ; — for  they  are  now 
known  to  have  been  made  twenty-two  years  after  that 
Council. 

Upon  that  pretence  of  Zosimus,  indeed,  a  tem- 
porary order  was  made  in  the  Council  of  Africk,  that 
'  appeals  might  be  made  to  the  Pope,  till  the  true 
Canons  of  Nice  were  produced3;'  which  afterwards 
being  done,  the  argument  was  spoiled,  and  that  Pope, 
if  possible,  was  put  to  shame.  Hereupon  that  excel- 
lent Epistle  was  written  to  Pope  Coelestine,  of  which 
you  had  account  before4. 

(2)  This  Council  was  never  ratified  by  the  recep-  Not  re- 
tion  of  the  Catholic  Church ;    for  the  Canons  of  it 
were  not  known  by  the  African  Bishops  when  Zosimus 

1  De  Catholica  Concordantia,  Lib.  11.  c.  15, 

2  [See  above,  p.  108  ;  and  for  a  fuller  exposure  of  the  forgery, 
compare  Bp  Carleton's  '  Jurisdiction,'  pp.  69 — 76.  ed.  1610,  and 
Comber's  '  Roman  Forgeries,'  Part  n.  pp.  35,  et  seqq.] 

3  [Epist.  ad  Bonif.  apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  11.  1140,  1141.] 
*  [pp.  109,  110.] 

16 


242  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

sent  them,  and  St  Augustine  discredits  them,  saying1, 
they  were  made  by  a  Synod  of  Arians. 

(3)  It   is   evident  that   this    Council   was   never 
accounted  truly  universal,  though  Constans  and  Con- 
stantius  intended2  it  should  be  so :  for  but  seventy  of 
the  Eastern  Bishops  appeared  to  three  hundred  of  the 
Western,  and  those  Eastern  Bishops  soon  withdrew 
from  the  other,  and  decreed  things  directly  contrary 
to  them :  so  that  Balsamon  and  Zonaras,  as  well  as 
the  elder  Greeks,  say  it  can  only  bind  the  Western 
Churches ;   and  indeed  it  was  a  long  time  before  the 
Canons  of  it  were  received  in  the  Western  Church, 
which  is  the  supposed  reason  why  Zosimus  sent  them 
as  the  Nicene,  and  not  as  the  Sardican,  Canons3. 

(4)  After  the   Eastern   Bishops   were   departed, 
there  were  not  Patriarchs  enough  to  make  a  general 
Council,  according  to  Bellarmine's  own  rule4.     Conse- 
quently, Venerable  Bede  leaves  it  out  of  the  number ; 
the  Eastern  Churches  do  not  reckon  it  among  their 
seven,  nor  the  Western  among  their  eight,  first  gene- 
ral Councils.     The  English  Church,  in  their  Synod  at 
Hedtfeld,  A.D.  680,  left  it  out  of  their  number,  and 
embrace  only  the  Council  of  Nice,  the  first  of  Con- 
stantinople, the  first  of  Ephesus,  the  first  and  second 
of  Chalcedon,  to  this  day5. 

1  [Ep.  CLXIII.  ;  see  Bp  Stillingfleet's  'Vindication,'  Vol.  n.  p.  209.] 

2  [It  was  assembled  by  them  in  order  to  establish  union  between 
the  eastern  and  western  Churches ;  see  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib. 
II.  c.  20.] 

3  [See  Stillingfleet's  '  Vindication,'  Vol.  n.  pp.  209,  210.] 

4  De  Concil.,  Lib.  i.  c.  17. 

6  [Archbp.  Bramhall,  Works,  Vol.  n.  p.  533,  where  the  authori- 
ties may  be  seen  at  length.] 


CHAP.  XIX. J  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  243 

Therefore  Archbishop  Bramhall  had  reason  to  say 
that  '  this  Council  was  never  incorporated  into  the 
English  laws,  and  consequently  hath  no  force  in  Eng- 
land ;  especially,  being  urged  in  a  matter  contrary  to 
the  famous  memorial  of  Clarendon,  a  fundamental  law 
of  this  land.  All  appeals  in  England  must  proceed 
regularly,  from  the  Bishop  to  the  Archbishop,  and 
from  him  to  the  King  to  give  order  for  redress1.' 

But  to  wipe  away  all  colour  of  argument,  whatever 
authority  these  Canons  may  be  thought  to  have  in 
other  matters,  it  is  certain  they  have  none  in  this 
matter  of  appeals  ;  for  as  to  this  point  the  undoubted 
general  Councils  afterward  decreed  quite  otherwise ; 
reducing  and  limiting  appeals  ultimately  to  the  Pri- 
mate of  the  province,  or  a  Council,  as  hath  been 
made  to  appear2. 

When  I  hear  any  thing  of  moment  urged  from 
any  other  Council,  as  a  grant  of  the  pretended  Su- 
premacy to  the  Pope,  I  shall  consider  what  may  be 
answered :  till  then,  I  think  there  is  an  end  of  his 
claim,  jure  humano,  either  by  a  civil  or  canonical 
grant,  by  Emperors,  or  general  Councils.  So  much 
hath  been  said  against,  and  so  little  to  purpose,  for 
the  Council  of  Trent,  that  I  shall  excuse  myself  and 
my  reader  from  any  trouble  about  it3. 

But  I  must  conclude,  that  the  Canons  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  were  never  acknowledged  or  re- 
ceived by  the  kingdom  of  England  as  the  Council  of 

1  [Archbp.  Bramhall,  Works,  Vol.  H.  p.  533.] 

2  [See  above,  p.  225.] 

3  [Bp.  Stillingfleet  considers  the  character  of  this  synod  in  his 
'  Vindication,'  Part  n.  chap,  viii.] 

16 — 2 


244  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XIX. 

Basle  was,  which  confirmed  the  acts  of  the  Council  of 
Constance ;  which  Council  of  Constance,  without  the 
presence  or  concurrence  of  the  Pope,  did  decree 
themselves  to  be  a  lawful  complete  general  Council 
superior  to  the  Pope,  and  that  he  was  subject  to  their 
censures ;  and  deposed  three  Popes  at  a  time.  The 
words  of  the  Council  are  remarkable  :  '  The  Pope  is 
subject  to  a  general  Council,  as  well  in  matters  of 
faith  as  of  manners,  so  as  he  may  not  only  be  cor- 
rected, but  if  he  be  incorrigible,  be  deposed1.' 

To  say  this  decree  was  not  conciliarly  made2,  and 
consequently  not  confirmed  by  Pope  Martin  V.,  signi- 
fies nothing,  if  that  Martin  were  Pope ;  because  his 
title  to  the  Papacy  depended  merely  upon  the  autho- 
rity of  that  decree.  But  indeed  the  word  '  conciliari- 
ter'  was  spoken  by  the  Pope  upon  a  particular  occa- 
sion, after  the  Council  was  ended  and  the  Fathers 
were  dismissed ;  as  appears  in  the  history. 

1  [See  authorities  above,  $  ix.,  and  Labbe,  Concil.,  Tom.  xn. 
pp.  19,  23.] 

2  [See  Bramhall's  '  Just  Vindication/  Part.  i.  Disc.  ii. ;  Works, 
Vol.  i.  pp.  260 — 252  :  Replication  to  the  Bp.  of  Chalcedon,  Part  i. 
Disc.  Hi. ;  Works,  Vol.  n.  pp.  250,  et  seqq.] 


CHAPTER   XX. 

OF  THE  POPE'S  TITLE  BY  DIVINE    RIGHT— THE 

QUESTION,  WHY  NOT  SOONER?— IT  IS 

THE  LAST  REFUGE. 


rPHE  modern  champions  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
J-  slight  all  that  hath  been  said,  and  judge  it  beneath 
their  master  and  his  cause  to  plead  any  thing  but  a 
'  Jug  Divinum'  for  his  pretended  Supremacy ;  and 
indeed  will  hardly  endure  and  tolerate  the  question, 
Whether  the  Pope  be  universal  Monarch,  or  Bishop 
of  the  whole  Church  as  St  Peter's  successor,  jure 
Divino  ? 

But  if  this  point  be  so  very  plain,  may  I  have 
leave  to  ask  why  it  was  not  urged  sooner?  Why 
were  lesser  inconsistent  pleas  so  long  insisted  on? 
Why  do  not  many  of  their  own  great  men  discern  it 
to  this  day  ? 

The  truth  is,  if  the  managery  of  the  combat  all 
along  be  seriously  reflected  on,  this  plea  of  Divine 
right  seems  to  be  the  last  refuge,  when  they  have 
been  driven  by  dint  of  argument  out  of  all  other 
holds,  as  no  longer  to  be  defended.  And  yet  give  me 
leave  to  observe,  that  this  last  ground  of  theirs  seems 
to  me  to  be  the  weakest,  and  the  least  able  to  secure 
them ;  which  looks  like  an  argument  of  a  sinking 
cause. 

However,  they  mightily  labour  to  support  it  by 
these  two  pillars,  (1)  That  the  government  of  the 
whole  Church  is  monarchical,  (2)  That  the  Pope  is 


246 


UNIVERSAL    PASTOR. 


[CHAP.  XX. 


the  Monarch ;  and  both  these  are  jure  Divino,  But 
these  pillars  also  must  be  supported,  and  how  that  is 
per/ormed  we  shall  examine. 


SECTION    I. 

WHETHER    THE     GOVERNMENT     OF     THE     WHOLE 

CHURCH  BE  MONARCHICAL  BY  DIVINE  RIGHT? 

— BELLARMINE— REASON— SCRIPTURE. 

BELLARMINE1   hath   flourished   with   this   argu- 
ment through  no  less  than  eight  whole  chapters, 
and  indeed  hath  industriously  and  learnedly  beaten  it 
as  far  it  would  go, — and  no  wonder  if  he  have  left 
it  thin. 

What  solidity  is  in  it,  we  are  to  weigh  both  from 
Reason  and  Scripture. 

I.     Not  from  Reason,  in  Three  Arguments. 

From  reason  they  argue  thus  :  God  hath  appointed 
the  best  and  most  profitable  government,  (for  He  is 
most  wise  and  good) ;  but  monarchical  government  is 
the  best  and  most  profitable. 

(1)  It  is  plainly  answered  that  to  know  which  is 
the  best  government,  the  state  of  that  which  is  to  be 
governed  must  be  considered,  the  end  of  government 
being  the  profit  and  good  of  the  state  governed ;  so 
that  unless  it  appear  that  this  kind  of  government  be 
the  most  convenient  for  the  state  of  the  Church, 
nothing  is  concluded. 

1  [De  Romano  Pontifice,  Lib.  i.  c.  I. — ix.] 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL    PASTOR.  24-7 

(2)  We  believe  that  God  hath  the  care  of  the 
world,  and  not  only  of  the  Church ;  therefore  in  His 
wise  and  good  Providence  He  ought  to  have  settled 
the  world  under  the  best  and  most  profitable  govern- 
ment, viz.  under  one  universal  Monarch. 

(3)  Bellarmine  himself  grants,  that  '  if  particular 
Churches  should  not  be  gathered,  inter  se,  so  as  to 
make  one  visible,   political   body,   their   own   proper 
rector  would  suffice  for  every  one,  and  there  should 
be  no  need  of  one  Monarch1.' 

But  all  particular  Churches  are  not  one  visible 
political  body,  but  as  particular  bodies  are  complete 
in  themselves,  enjoying  all  parts  of  ordinary  worship 
and  government  singly ;  neither  is  there  any  part  of 
worship  or  government  proper  to  the  (Ecumenical 
Church,  qua  talis. 

(4)  The  argument  seems  stronger  the  contrary 
way :  God  is  good  and  wise,  and  hath  appointed  the 
best  government  for  His  own  Church  ;  but  He  hath  not 
appointed  that  it  should  be  monarchical :    therefore 
that  kind  of  government  seems  not  to  be  the  best  for 
His  Church.     Christ  might  foresee  the  great  incon- 
veniences   of  His  Church's   being   governed  by   one 
ecclesiastical  Monarch,  when  divided  under  the  several 
secular  powers  of  the  world,  though  the  ambition  of 
men  overlook  it  and  consider  it  not. 

Yet  that  the  government  of  the  Church  appointed 
by  God,  as  best  for  it,  is  monarchical,  is  not  believed 
by  all  '  Catholics.'  The  Sorbonne  Doctors  doubt  not 
to  affirm,  that  aristocratical  government  is  the  best 

1   [Ibid.  c.  viii.;  Disputat.  Tom.  I.  p.  136,  A.] 


248  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

of  all,  and  most  agreeable  to  the  nature  of  the 
Church1. 

(6)  But  what  if  we  yield  the  whole  argument? 
As  the  government  of  the  Church  is  imperial,  it  is  in 
Christ,  the  universal  Monarch  over  it ;  but  He  being 
in  a  far  country,  He  governs  the  several  parts  of  his 
Church  in  distinct  countries  by  visible  ministerial 
monarchs  or  primates,  proper  to  each.  The  distinc- 
tion of  imperial  and  ministerial  power  is  given  us  in 
this  very  case  by  our  adversaries ;  there  is  nothing 
unreasonable,  unpracticable,  or  contrary  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  world  in  the  assertion.  We  grant  that 
monarchy  is  the  best  kind  of  government  in  a  due 
sphere  ;  the  world  is  wide  enough  for  many  monarchs, 
and  the  Church  too.  The  argument  concludes  for 
Primates  over  Provinces,  not  for  an  universal  Monarch, 
either  over  the  world  or  the  whole  Church. 

'  The  Church  cannot  be  propagated  (as  Bellarmine2 
argues)  without  a  universal  monarch,  to  send  preach- 
ers into  other  provinces,'  &c. 

Who  can  doubt  but  that  the  governors  of  any 
Church  have  as  much  power  to  send  any  of  her  mem- 
bers, and  have  as  much  power  in  pagan  and  infidel 
countries,  as  the  supposed  universal  Bishop  ?  And  if 

1  [This  was  the  affirmation   of  Antonius   de  Dominis    in    his 
Treatise  '  de  Republica  Ecclesiastica ;'  where  he  further  quoted  the 
Doctors  of  the  Sorbonne  as  holding  the  same  view.      In  1617,  how- 
ever, they  disclaimed  all  sympathy  with  him,  declaring  his  propo- 
sition 'heretique  et  schismatique,  en  tant  qu'elle  insinue  ouverte- 
ment  que  le   pape  n'a   point  d'autorite   de    droit  divin   sur  les 
autres  eglises.'     See  Du  Pin,  Hist.    Eccl.  du   17me  siecle,  Tom.  i. 
pp.  447,  et  seqq.  a  Paris,  1714.] 

2  [T)e  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  i.  o.  ix.:    Tom.  i.  p.  138,  B.] 


CIIAI-.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  249 

heretics  can  propagate  their  errors,  why  should  not 
the  orthodox  the  truth  without  the  Pope  ? 

'  It  is  necessary  (saith  Bellarmine J)  that  all  the  Argument 
faithful  should  have  one  faith,  which  cannot  be  with- 
out one  chief  Judge.' 

In  necessaries  they  may,  in  other  things  they  need  Answer, 
not ;  as  appears  sufficiently  among  the  Romanists 
about  this  as  well  as  other  points ;  neither  could 
Peter  himself,  with  the  help  of  the  rest  of  the  Apos- 
tles, in  their  time  prevent  heresies  and  schisms.  These 
things  are  too  weak  to  bear  up  the  great  power  and 
universal  Monarchy  pretended,  and  indeed  an  im- 
peachment of  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  Christ,  if 
He  have  not  provided  such  a  government  for  his 
Church  as  they  plead  a  necessity  of,  for  the  said 
ends : — the  thing  next  to  be  inquired — 

II.     Not  from  Scripture  Prophecies,  Promises,  Meta- 
phors, or  Example  of  High-priest. 

They  affirm  that  '  the  Scriptures  evince  an  uni- 
versal Monarchy  over  the  Church :'  but  how  is  it 
proved  ? 

The  prophecies  and  promises  and  sundry  meta-  Argument 
phors  (of  a  house,  kingdom,  body,  flock,  &c.)  prove 
the  Church  to  be  one  in  itself;  and  consequently  it 
must  have  one  supreme  Governor2. 

We  are  agreed,  that  the  Church  is  but  one,  and  Answer, 
that   it  hath    one    supreme    Governor;    and  we   are 

1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib  i.  c.  ix.:  Tom.  i.  p.  138,  c.] 

2  [This  argument  is  stated  at  length  by  Bellarmine,  ibid.  p.  138. 
For  a  fuller  reply  see  Bp.  Overall's  'Convocation  Book,'  pp.  202,  et 
seqq.  ed.  Oxf.  1844.] 


250  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

agreed,  that  Christ  hath  the  supreme  government  of 
it,  and  that  those  Scriptures  too  signify  that  He  is 
such,  if  we  consider  the  government  to  be  imperial, 
(as  Hart1  confesseth  to  Dr.  Rainolds).  And  thus  the 
argument  passeth  without  any  harm ;  but  it  still  rests 
to  be  proved  that  the  ministerial  governor  is  but  one, 
or  that  the  Scriptures  intend  so,  or  St  Peter,  or  the 
Pope,  as  his  successor,  is  that  one  governor  over  the 
whole  Church. 

It  is  true,  as  our  Saviour  saith,  there  is  one  flock 
and  one  shepherd ;  but  it  is  as  true  which  he  saith  in 
the  same  place, — '  I  am  that  good  shepherd;'  but  as 
that  one  principal  Pastor  had  many  vicars,  not  Peter 
only,  but  twelve  Apostles,  to  gather  and  feed  the 
sheep,  who  were  therefore  sent  to  preach  to  all  na- 
tions,— and  did,  as  it  is  said,  divide  the  world  into 
twelve  provinces  respectively, — so  that  one  great 
Monarch  might  have  many  viceroys,  if  we  may  so  call 
the  future  Bishops  to  govern  the  Church ;  though  in 
faith  but  one,  yet  in  site  and  place  divided.  It  is  no 
unreasonable  thing,  that  the  King  of  Britain  and  Ire- 
land should  govern  Scotland  and  Ireland,  which  lie  at 
some  distance  from  him,  by  his  deputations,  as  before 
was  hinted. 

'  There  was  one  High-priest  over  the  Church  of 
the  Jews,  and  by  analogy  it  ought  to  be  so  in  the 
Christian  Church.' 

Many  things  were  in  that  Church  which  ought  not 
to  be  in  this. 

1  [See  'The  Sum  of  the  Conference  between  John  Rainolds 
and  John  Hart,'  p.  9.  London,  1609.] 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR,  251 

They  were  one  nation  as  well  as  one  Church ;  and 
if  every  Christian  nation  have  one  High-priest,  the 
analogy  holds  well  enough. 

The  making  the  nations  of  the  world  Christian 
hath,  as  experience  shews,  rendered  the  government 
of  the  Church  by  one  person,  that  cannot  reside  in 
all  places,  very  inconvenient,  if  not  impracticable. 

Now  if  our  Saviour  foresaw  this,  and  hath  ordered 
the  government  of  the  Christian  Church  otherwise 
than  Moses  had  that  of  the  Jews,  who  shall  say,  What 
hast  thou  done  ? 

It  can  never  be  proved  that  the  High-priest  over 
the  Jews  was  either  called  the  Judge,  or  had  such 
power  over  that  Church  as  the  Pope,  pretends  over 
the  Christian1. 

Lastly,  it  is  not  doubted  but  Moses  was  faithful, 
and  Christ  as  faithful,  in  appointing  a  fit  government 
for  these  great  and  distinct  states  of  the  Church ;  but 
what  kind  of  government  Moses  appointed  is  nothing 
to  the  question,  unless  it  appear  that  Christ  hath 
appointed  the  same.  The  proper  question  is,  whether 
Christ  hath  appointed  that  the  Christian  Church 
should  be  governed  by  one  universal  Monarch ; — let 
us  apply  to  that. 

The  great  issue  is,  the  instance  of  St  Peter.     It  is  Argument 

in. 
affirmed  that  our  Lord  committed  the  government  of 

the  Christian  Church  to  St  Peter,  and  his  successors, 
the  Popes  of  Rome,  for  ever. 

A  grant  of  so  great  consequence  ought  to  be  very 
plain ;  the  whole  world  is  concerned,  and  may  expect 
evidence  very  clear,  (1)  That  Christ  gave  this  universal 
1  See  Conference  between  Rainolds  and  Hart,  pp.  202,  203. 


252  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAT.  XX. 

Supremacy  to  St  Peter ;  and  (2)  to  the  Pope,  as  his 
successor.     If  either  fail,  Roma  ruit. 


SECTION   II. 

OF   ST  PETER'S    MONARCHY— 'TU  ES    PETRUS'— 
FATHERS   ABUSED. 

WE  are  now  come  to  the  quick.  The  first  great 
question  is,  Whether  Christ  gave  his  Apostle 
St  Peter  the  government  of  his  whole  Church  ?  This 
would  be  proved  from  Matthew  xvi.  18,  '  Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church.' 
The  argument  is,  What  Christ  promised  He  gave ;  but 
in  these  words  Christ  promised  to  make  Peter  the 
Supreme  Head  and  Governor  of  his  Church ;  there- 
fore this  power  was  given  him. 

If  this  argument  conclude,  by  'this  rock'  must  be 
meant  St  Peter ;  and  the  words,  '  I  will  build  my 
Church  upon  it,'  must  signify  the  committing  the 
supreme  power  of  the  Church  to  him. 

For  the  first,  it  is  at  least  a  controversy  among 
the  ancient  Fathers ;  and  many  of  them  do  deny 
that  by  this  rock  we  are  to  understand  any  thing 
but  that  confession  which  was  evidently  the  occa- 
sion of  this  promise,  and  was  made  by  Peter  just 
before, — as  St  Cyril1,  Hilary2,  Chrysostom3,  Am- 

1  [S.  Cyril.  Alexand.  de  Sancta  Trinitate,  Dial.  iv. ;  Opp.  Tom. 
v.  Part.  I.  p.  507,  E;  ed.  Paris.  1638.] 

2  [e.g.  de  Trinitate,  Lib.  n. ;  Opp.  p.  17,  col.  i.  c;  ed.  Paris. 
1631.] 

3  [e.  g.  in  Matth.  Hornil.  LIV.  al.  LV.  ;  Opp.  Tom.  vn.  p.  548,  A : 
ed.  Paris.  1727.] 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  253 

brose1,  and  St  Augustine2,  whose  lapsus  kumanus  in 
it  is  reproved  by  Stapleton3. 

But  I  am  willing  to  agree  as  far  as  we  may,  and 
therefore  shall  not  deny  but  something  peculiar  to 
St  Peter's  person  was  here  promised,  (though  I  be- 
lieve it  was  a  point  of  honour,  not  a  supremacy  of 
power) :  what  that  was  will  appear  by  the  thing  pro- 
mised, '  I  will  build  my  Church,'  that  is,  '  upon  my 
doctrine  preached  by  thee.'  '  I  will  build  my  Church  ;' 
thou  shalt  have  the  honour  of  being  a  prime  and 
principal  author  of  the  world's  conversion ;  or  (as  Dr 
Rainolds4  against  Hart)  Peter  was  in  order  with  the 
first  who  believed,  and  among  those  first  he  had  a 
mark  of  honour  in  that  he  was  named  '  Stone '  above  his 
brethren.  Yet  as  he,  so  the  rest  are  called  founda- 
tions, and  indeed  so  were  in  both  these  senses  :  for 
the  twelve  were  all  prime  converts,  and  converters  of 
others,  and  were  foundations  in  their  respective  pro- 
vinces on  which  others  were  built ;  but  they  were  not 
built  one  upon  another,  and  they  had  no  other  founda- 
tion on  which  they  themselves  were  built,  but  Christ 
himself. 

1  [e.  g.  in  Epist.  ad  Ephes.  cap.  n. ;  Opp.  Tom.  in.  col.  498,  E ; 
ed.  Paris.  1614.] 

2  [St.  Augustine  held  that  the  '  rock'  might  in  one  sense  mean 
St.  Peter,   and  in  another  our  Lord  himself.     In  his  'Retracta- 
tions,' Lib.  i.  c.  21,  he  says  "  Harum  autem  duarum  sententiarum, 
quse  sit  probabilior  eligat  lector."] 

3  De  Princip.  Doctrin.  Lib.  vi.  c.  3.     [A  synopsis  of  the  various 
interpretations  of  this  text  of  Scripture  is  given  in  Mr.  Palmer's 
'  Treatise  on  the  Church,'  Part  vn.  chap,  i.] 

4  [pp.  30,  31.     The  same  view  is  taken  of  our  Lord's  declaration 
by  Bishop  Pearson,  On  the  Creed,  Art.  ix.  p.  608 ;  ed.  Lond.  1842 ; 
and  by  Bp.  Horsley,  Sermon  on  Matt.  xvi.  18,  19.] 


254  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

We  are  willing  to  any  thing  that  the  sense  of  the 
words  will  conveniently  bear ;  but  that  they  should 
signify  power  and  government  over  the  whole  Church, 
and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  we  cannot  understand : 
for  the  Rock  is  supposed  before  the  building  upon  it, 
and  the  building  before  the  government  of  the  house  ; 
and  the  government  of  the  Church  cannot  tolerably 
be  thought  to  be  of  the  foundation  or  first  building  of 
the  Church,  but  for  the  preservation  or  augmentation 
of  it  after  its  existence  is  supposed. 

Perhaps  there  is  ground  to  allow  that  Peter's 
foundation  was  the  first,  as  his  name  was  first  among 
the  Apostles ;  and  that  this  was  the  reason  of  that 
primacy  of  order  and  dignity  which  some  of  the 
ancients  in  their  writings  acknowledged  in  St  Peter1 ; 
but  certainly  there  is  need  of  a  plainer  text  to  argue 
this  text  to  signify  that  supremacy  of  power  over  the 
rest  of  the  Apostles  and  the  whole  Church,  which  is  so 
hotly  contended  for  by  our  Romish  adversaries  to  be 
given  Saint  Peter.  However,  after  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  '  all  were  made  equal,  both  in  honour  and 
power,'  as  Saint  Cyprian2  saith. 

But  it  is  urged  that  the  other  part  of  the  promise 
is  most  clear,  "  To  thee  will  I  give  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  viz.  '  the  fulness  of  ecclesiastical 
power,'  as  Hart3  expressed  it. 

1  Paul  had  the  same  primacy  over  Barnabas,  that  Peter  had 
over  the  apostles.    See  St.  Ambrose  in  Epist.  ad  Gal.  c.  H.:  [Opp. 
Tom.  in.  col.  471,  G  ;  ed.  Paris.  1614.] 

2  De  Unitate  Eccles.    [§  3 :  "  Hoc  erant  utique  et  caeteri  apos- 
toli,  quod  fuit  Petrus,  pari  consortio  prsediti  et  honoris  et  potestatis; 
sed  exordium  ab  unitate  proficiscitur,  ut  ecclesia  Christi  una  mon- 
stretur."]  3  [Conference,  p.  32.] 


CHAP.  XX.J  I  NIVERSAL   PASTOR.  255 

Our  answer  is,  that  Christ  here  promised  no  more  Answer. 
power  to  Peter  than  he  performed  to  all  the  Apostles  : 
Peter's  confession  was  made  in  the  name  of  all,  and 
Christ's  promise  was  made  to  Peter  in  the  name  of 
all ;  and  nothing  can  be  clearer,  either  in  the  text  or 
in  fact. 

The  text  is  plain,  both  in  itself  and  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Fathers,  that  Peter  stood  in  the  room  of 
the  rest,  both  when  he  made  the  confession  and 
received  the  promise1. 

And  that  it  did  equally  concern  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles  is  evident  by  the  performance  of  it.  A  pro- 
mise is  of  something  de  futuro ;  our  Saviour  saith  to 
Peter,  '  I  will  give  thee  the  keys,'  but  when  did  He  do 
it  ?  And  how  did  He  do  it  ?  Certainly  at  the  time 
when  He  delivered  those  words  recorded  John  xx. 
21,  23,  and  after  the  manner  there  expressed,  and  by 
that  form  of  words.  How  are  not  those  words  spoken 
by  Christ  equally  to  all  the  Apostles?  "As  my  Father 
sent  me,  so  do  I  send  you ;  whose  soever  sins  ye 
remit,"  &c. — nothing  plainer. 

To  say  that  Christ  gave  not  the  keys  to  all,  but 
only  the  power  of  remitting  and  retaining  sins,  seems 
pitiful,  unless  some  other  proof  be  offered,  that  Christ 
did  actually  perform  this  promise  to  St  Peter  apart, 

1  Vid.  S.  Augustin.  in  Johan.  cap.  xix.  Tractat.  cxvm. ;  [Opp. 
Tom.  m.  Part  n.  col.  583,  F;  ed.  Antverp.  1700]:  S.  Arabros.  En- 
narat.  in  Ps.  xxxvm.;  [Opp.  Tom.  n.  Col.  744,  E;  ed.  Paris.  1614]: 
Hieronym.  adv.  Jovinian.  Lib.  i. ;  [Opp.  Tom.  iv.  Part  ii.  Col. 
168;  ed.  Paris.  1706]:  Origen.  Comment,  in  Matth. ;  [Opp.  Tom. 
m.  pp.  523,  524;  ed.  Paris.  1740]:  Hilar.  Pictav.  de  Trinitate,  Lib. 
vi.  ;  [Opp.  col.  77,  78;  ed.  Paris.  1631].  Cardinal  de  Cusa  is  plain 
on  this  point  also.  Vid.  de  Cathol.  Concordantia,  Lib.  11.  c.  13. 


256  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

and  give  him  the  keys  at  some  other  time,  in  distinc- 
tion to  the  power  given  in  the  twentieth  of  John  to 
all  together. 

'  Remitting  and  retaining  sins,'  is  certainly  the 
power  of  the  keys,  and  so  called  by  the  Council  of 
Trent1  itself.  And  it  is  not  the  keeping,  but  the 
power  of  the  keys  is  the  question  ;  and  indeed  Bellar- 
mine2  proves,  that  the  whole  power  of  the  keys,  and 
not  a  part  only,  as  Stapleton3  supposed,  was  granted 
to  all  the  Apostles  in  the  words  John  xx.,  to  be  the 
general  interpretation  of  the  Fathers. 

Stapleton4  from  Turrecremata  distinguisheth  be- 
twixt the  apostolic  and  the  episcopal  Power ;  and  they 
grant,  that  the  apostolic  power  was  equal  in  all  the 
Apostles,  and  received  immediately  from  Christ,  but 
the  episcopal  power  was  given  to  St.  Peter  with  the 
keys,  and  immediately  and  by  him  to  the  rest. 

This  is  a  new  shift ;  else  why  is  the  title  '  apos- 
tolical' given  to  the  Pope,  to  his  See,  to  all  acts,  &c.; 
seeing  the  Pope,  according  to  the  fineness  of  this  dis- 
tinction, doth  not  succeed  Peter,  as  an  Apostle,  but 
as  a  Bishop. 

It  is  as  strange  as  new ;  seeing  the  power  of  the 
keys  must  as  well  denote  the  episcopal  power  of  the 
rest  of  the  Apostles  as  of  Peter;  and  the  power  of 
using  them,  by  remitting,  &c.,  was  given,  generally 
and  immediately,  by  Christ  to  them  all  alike. 

1  Catechism,  ad  Parochos,  [p.  257,  ed.  Lovan.  1567.] 

2  In  Praelect.  Roman.   Controvers.  iv.   Qusest.  in.  de  Suinmo 
Pontifice. 

3  [De  Princip.  Doctrin.  Lib.  vi.  c.  l.j 

4  [Ibid.  capp.  1,  6,  7,  8.] 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL    PASTOR.  '257 

This  distinction  of  Turrecremata  was  (as  Rainolds1 
against  Hart  sheweth)  spoiled,  before  Doctor  Staple- 
ton  new  vamped  it,  by  two  learned  friars,  Sixtus 
Senensis  and  Franciscus  &  Victoria ;  evidencing  both 
out  of  the  Scriptures,  that  the  Apostles  received  all 
their  power  immediately  of  Christ ;  and  the  Fathers, 
that  in  the  power  of  apostleship  and  order  (so  the 
two  powers  were  called),  Paul  was  equal  to  Peter, 
and  the  rest  to  them  both. 

Therefore,  this  distinction  failing,  another  is  in- 
vented, and  a  third  kind  of  power  is  set  up,  viz.  the 
power  of  the  kingdom ;  and  now  from  the  threefold 
power  of  Saint  Peter,  Apostolatus,  Ordinis,  Regni,  it 
is  strongly  affirmed2,  (1)  touching  the  Apostleship, 
'Paul  (as  Jerome3  saith)  was  not  inferior  to  Peter ;  for 
he  was  chosen  to  preach  the  Gospel,  not  by  Peter, 
but  by  God,  as  Peter  was' :  (2)  touching  the  power 
given  in  the  sacrament  of  Orders,  Jerome4  saith  well 
too,  that  '  all  the  Apostles  received  the  keys  equally, 
and  that  they  all,  as  Bishops,  were  equal  in  the  degree 
of  Priesthood,  and  the  spiritual  power  of  that  de- 
gree :' — thus  the  first  distinction  is  gone.  But,  thirdly, 
touching  the  power  of  kingdom,  Saint  Jerome5  saith 
best  of  all,  that  '  Peter  was  chosen  among  the  twelve, 
and  made  the  head  of  all,  that  all  occasion  of  schism 
might  be  removed.' 

These  are  fancies  of  the  Schoolmen,  but  where  are 

1  [Conference,  p.  81.] 

2  [See  Rainolds  against  Hart,  ibid.] 

3  In  Comment,  ad  Galat.  [cap.  I. :   Opp.  Tom.  iv.  Part  i.  col. 
223.] 

4  Advers.  Joviqian.  [Lib.  i. :  Opp.  Tom.  TV.  Part  ii.  rol.  168.] 
*  [Ibid.] 

17 


258  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

they  grounded?  We  are  seeking  for  Saint  Peter's 
supremacy  in  the  Scripture ;  where  do  we  there  find 
this  power  of  the  kingdom  given  him  by  Christ  ?  Or 
what  ancient  Father  ever  so  expounded  this  text  of 
the  keys? 

We  grant,  many  expressions  are  found  in  the 
Fathers  in  honour  of  Saint  Peter.  Saint  Augustine 
affirms  his  '  primacy  is  conspicuous  and  pre-eminent 
with  excellent  grace :'  Saint  Chrysostom  calleth  him 
'the  mouth/  'the  chief/  'the  top  of  the  company;' 
Theodoret  styles  him,  '  the  prince  ; '  Epiphanius  '  the 
highest;'  Saint  Augustine  'the  head,  president  and 
first  of  the  Apostles ; '  which  he  proveth  out  of  Saint 
Cyprian,  who  saith,  '  the  Lord  chose  Peter  first ; '  and 
Saint  Jerome  saith,  '  he  was  the  head,  that  occasion 
of  schism  might  be  taken  away/  and  gives  him  the 
honour  of  great  authority ; — all  these  were  used  by 
Hart1  against  Rainolds. 

To  them  all  Doctor  Rainolds2  gives  clear  and 
satisfactory  answers,  shewing  largely  that  they  signify 
nothing  but  a  primacy  of  election,  or  order,  or  dignity, 
or  esteem,  and  authority  in  that  sense ;  or  a  primacy 
in  grace  and  gifts,  viz.  a  principality  or  chiefness  in 
worth ;  or  a  primacy  of  presidentship  in  assemblies, 
as  the  mouth  and  moderator ;  or  the  head  of  unity 
and  order,  as  Jerome3  means :  but  it  is  not  to  be 
proved  from  any  or  all  of  these  encomiums,  that  the 
Fathers  believed  that  the  other  Apostles  were  under 
Saint  Peter  as  their  governor,  or  that  he  had  any 
real  power  given  him  by  Christ  more  than  they. 

1  [Conference,  p.  172.]  2  [Ibid.  pp.  172,  et  seqq.] 

3  [Quoted  above,  p.  257,  note  5.] 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  259 

The  words  of  Saint  Cyprian1  are  plain  and  full. 
"Albeit  Christ,"  saith  he,  "gave  equal  power  to  all 
the  Apostles  after  his  resurrection,  and  said,  As  my 
Father,  &c.  ;  yet  to  declare  unity,  He  disposed  by  his 
authority  the  original  of  that  unity,  beginning  in  one. 
No  doubt,"  saith  he,  "the  rest  were  the  same  that 
Peter  was,  endued  with  the  like  fellowship  (pari  con- 
ftortio)  of  honour  and  power ;  but  the  beginning  doth 
come  from  unity,  that  the  Church  of  Christ  may  be 
shewed  to  be  but  one." 

Thus  this  topic  of  the  Fathers'  expounding  the 
text  being  found  to  fail,  another  device,  and  such  a 
one  as  the  very  detection  both  answers  and  shames 
the  authors,  is  fled  unto,  viz.  to  corrupt  instead  of 
purging  the  Fathers,  and  to  make  them  speak  home 
indeed. 

The  place  of  Saint  Cyprian  just  now  set,  is  a  very 
clear  instance  of  this  black  art,  allowed  by  the  Popes 
themselves ;  the  place  which  in  the  former  prints  was 
thought  to  make  rather  for  an  equality  of  all  the 
Apostles  in  power,  as  it  is  set  down  in  the  Roman- 
purged  Cyprian,  is  thus  altered  by  addition  of  these 
words,  '  and  the  primacy  is  given  to  Peter.'  Again  He 
appointed  one  Church,  '  and  the  chair  to  be  one ;'  and 
to  make  all  sure,  the  Antwerp  Cyprian  addeth  con- 
veniently Peter's  chair  :  and  then,  saith  he,  who  for- 
saketh  'Peter's'  chair,  on  which  the  Church  was 
founded,  &c.  And  by  this  time  Peter's  primacy  is 
the  Pope's  supremacy2. 

1  De  Unitate  Eccles.  $  3. 

2  See  Dr.  Rainolds  [against  Hart],  pp.  166 — 171. 

17—2 


260  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

But  Thomas  Aquinas1  hath  dealt  worse  with  St 
Cyril,  fathering  a  'treasure'  upon  him  which  he  never 
owned,  beyond  all  tolerable  defence.  To  the  Grecians 
St  Cyril  is  brought  in  speaking  thus :  '  Christ  did 
commit  a  full  and  ample  power  both  to  Peter  and 
his  successors  '../the  Apostles  in  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  have  affirmed  (in  every  doctrine)  Peter  and 
his  Church  to  be  in  stead  of  God ;  and  to  him,  even 
to  Peter,  all  do  bow  by  the  Law  of  God,  and  the 
Princes  of  the  world  are  obedient  to  him,  even  as  to 
the  Lord  Jesus ;  and  we  as  being  members  must 
cleave  unto  our  head,  the  Pope  and  the  Apostolic 
See,'  &c. 

Now  either  St  Cyril  said  thus,  or  not.  If  he  did, 
who  will  believe  him  that  shall  make  such  stories,  and 
father  them  upon  every  doctrine  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, contrary  to  common  sense  and  the  knowledge 
of  all ;  or  trust  his  cause  to  the  interpretation  of  such 
Fathers  ?  But  if  this  Book  called  St  Cyril's  '  Trea- 
sure '  be  none  of  St  Cyril's, — as  certainly  it  is  not, — 
then,  though  I  am  provoked,  I  shall  say  no  more,  but 
that  we  should  weigh  the  reasons,  but  not  the  autho- 
rity, of  such  a  schoolman,  especially  in  his  master's 
cause.  It  is  certain,  the  words  are  not  to  be  found  in 
those  parts  of  Cyril's  '  Treasure '  which  are  extant,  as 
Hart2  acknowledged  to  Dr  Eainolds. 

Yet  the  abuse  of  single  Fathers  is  not  so  heinous 
a  thing  as  Thomas  committed  against  six  hundred 
Bishops,  even  the  general  Council  of  Chalcedon,  when 

1  [In  Opuscule  contra  Errores  Grsecorum  ad  Urban  IV.,  quoted 
at  length  by  Rainolds,  ubi  supra,  p.  159.] 

2  [Ibid.  p.  160.] 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  261 

he  saith  they  decreed  thus :  "  If  any  Bishop  be  ac- 
cused, let  him  appeal  freely  to  the  Pope  of  Rome, 
because  we  have  Peter  for  a  rock  of  refuge ;  and  he 
alone  hath  right  with  freedom  of  power,  in  the  stead 
of  God,  to  judge  and  try  the  crime  of  a  Bishop, 
according  to  the  keys  which  the  Lord  did  give  him ;" 
calling  the  Pope  '  the  mos  holy,  apostolic,  and  uni- 
versal Patriarch  of  the  whole  world1.'  Now  in  that 
Council  there  is  not  a  word  of  all  this ;  and  they 
answer,  heretics  have  razed  it  out,  if  you  will  believe 
it,  but  neither  Surius  nor  Carranza  find  any  thing 
wanting2.  I  shall  only  make  this  note,  that  seeing  the 
Fathers  have  been  so  long  in  the  hands  of  those  men 
that  stick  at  nothing  that  may  advance  the  power  of 
their  master,  it  is  no  wonder  that  their  learned  adver- 
saries are  unwilling  to  trust  their  cause  with  such 
judges,  but  rather  appeal  to  the  true  Canon,  and  call 
for  Scripture. 

One  would  think  this  were  enough :  but  this 
opinion  of  the  equality  of  power  among  the  Apostles 
was  not  only  the  concurrent  judgment  of  the  ancients, 
but  even  of  learned  later  men  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
even  from  these  words,  Tu  es  Petrus,  etc.,  upon  unan- 
swerable reason, — Lyra3,  Durand  a  St  Porciano4,  both 
in  the  fourteenth  century,  and  Abulensis5  in  the  fif- 
teenth century.  The  latter  argues  earnestly,  '  that 
none  of  the  Apostles  did  understand  those  words  of 

1  [See  Rainolds,  ibid.  p.  163.J 

2  [Ibid.] 

3  [Nicol.  de  Lyra,  Postil.  in  Mat.  xvi.  18,  iy.] 

4  [Commentar.  super  iv.  Sentcnt.  Distinct,  xvni.  Qusest.  u.] 

5  In  Matth.  xviii.  Quacst.  VH.;  in  Matth.  xx.   Qiuest.  i. \\.\in 

LXXX1V. 


262  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

Christ  to  give  any  supremacy  to  Peter ;  for  after- 
wards they  contended  for  superiority,  Matthew  xviii., 
and  after  that,  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee  desire  it, 
Matthew  xx.,  and  at  the  last  supper  the  question  is 
put  again,  Luke  xxii.'  Therefore  he  concludes,  '  they 
thought  themselves  equal  till  Christ's  death,  when 
they  knew  not  which  of  them  should  be  greatest1.' 
This  was  the  common  interpretation  of  the  Doctors 
of  Paris,  and  of  Adolphus  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  and 
of  the  Bishops  of  his  province  ;  the  decrees  of  whose 
Synod,  with  this  interpretation,  were  ratified  in  every 
point  by  Charles  the  Fifth,  and  enjoined  to  be  ob- 
served2. 

Thus  the  chief  ground  of  St  Peter's  supremacy  is 
sunk,  and  there  is  little  hopes  that  any  other  text  will 
hold  up  that  weighty  superstructure. 

Another  Scripture  much  insisted  on  for  the  sup- 
port of  St  Peter's  supremacy,  is  John  xxi.  14 — 17  : 
"  Peter,  lovest  thou  me  ?  Feed  my  sheep,  feed  my 
lambs :"  wherein  is  committed  to  Peter  the  power  of 
the  whole  Church. 

It  is  answered,  this  text  gives  not  any  commission 
or  power  to  St  Peter ;  it  gives  him  charge  and  com- 
mandment to  execute  his  commission  received  before. 
Now  it  hath  appeared  sufficiently,  that  the  commission 
was  given  equally  to  all  the  Apostles  in  those  words, 
"  as  my  Father  sent  me,  so  send  I  you,"  &c.  ;  so  that 
the  power  of  feeding,  and  the  duty  of  pastors,  was 

1  See  disarms  his  contemporary,  de  Concord.  Cathol.  Lib.  ui. 
c.  13,  c.  34,  and  Franciscus  &  Victoria,  [both  quoted  at  length  by 
Dr.  Hammond, '  Dispatcher  Dispatcht,'  chap.  11.  sect.  ii.  §  2.] 

2  Apud  Condi,  ed.  Bin.  A.D.  1549;  [Tom.  ix.  p.  304,  col.  2,  B.] 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  263 

alike  to  them  all.  Though  this  charge  was  given  to 
Peter  by  name  here,  with  so  many  items  perhaps 
intimating  his  repeated  'prevarications,  yet  were  they 
all  sent,  and  all  charged  with  a  larger  province  than 
these  words  to  Peter  import:  'Teach  all  nations,' — 
1  Preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,' — are  our 
Saviour's  charge  to  them  all. 

'  In  the  apostolic  power    all    were    equal'    (saith  Objection. 
Hart1),  'not  in  the  pastoral  charge.' 

We  answer  with  a  distinction  (allowed  by  Staple-  Answer. 
ton2)  of  the  name  Pastor;  it  is  special  and  distinct 
from  Apostle; — "some  Apostles... some  Pastors3;" — 
or  general  and  common  to  all  commissioned  to  preach 
the  Gospel.  So  Christ  is  called  Pastor4,  and  all  the 
Apostles  were  Pastors  as  well  as  Peter. 

But '  St  Peter  was  the  Pastor  over  the  rest ;  for  Objection, 
he  is  charged  to  feed  all  the  sheep,  the  whole  Church. 
Now  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  were  Christ's  sheep,  and 
members  of  his  Church5.' 

Christ  saith  not  to  Peter,  Feed  all  my  sheep,  but  Answer, 
he  doth  say  to  them  all,  '  Preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature6.'  And  if  Peter  have  power  over  the  rest, 
because  they  are  sheep,  and  he  is  to  feed  the  sheep ; 
then  every  one  of  the  rest  have  power  over  Peter 
because  he  is  a  creature,  and  they  are  to  preach  to 
every  creature.  But  this  is  trifling ;  so  is  all  that  is 
further  argued  from  this  text ;  though  by  feeding  we 
understand  ruling,  ruling  of  pastors,  or  what  you  will, 

1  [Conference,  p.  87.] 

3  [Do  Princip.  Doctrin.  Lib.  vi.  c.  7.] 

3  Eph.  iv.  [11.]  <  [John  x.  11 ;  1  Pet.  ii.  25.] 

s  Hart,  [as  above,  p.  90.]  6  [Mark  xvi.  15.] 


264  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

while  whatsoever  was  charged  on  Peter  here  is  within 
the  same  commission,  wherein  Peter  and  all  the  rest 
of  the  Apostles  are  equally  empowered  as  before  ;  and 
that  of  Bellarmine l,  '  that  Peter  was  to  feed  the  sheep 
as  ordinary  pastor,  the  Apostles  as  extraordinary  am- 
bassadors,' is  altogether  as  groundless ; — as  if  there 
were  any  colour  of  reason  that  an  ordinary  pastor 
should  have  more  power  than  an  extraordinary  am- 
bassador. 

Dr  Hammond  observes,  '  Bellarmine  was  not  the 
author  of  that  artifice  ;  Cajetan  and  Victoria  had  used 
it  before  him,  and  obtained  it  the  honour  of  coming 
into  the  Council  of  Trent,  where  the  Bishop  of  Gra- 
nada derided  it,  and  the  authors  of  it ;  and  soon  after 
the  Bishop  of  Paris  expressly  affirmed  that  Cajetan 
was  (about  fifty  years  before)  the  first  deviser  of  it. 
The  Bishop  of  Granada  confutes  it  by  Scripture,  as 
understood  by  all  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen, — as  he 
affirmed2.' 

To  conclude  this  matter,  '  Feed  my  sheep'  are  not 
a  ground  for  the  Pope's  presidency,  which  are  found 
not  to  be  so  of  Peter's  above  the  body  of  the  uni- 
versal Church ;  as  was  publicly  pronounced  in  the 
Convent  of  the  Friars-Minors,  (as  appears  by  the 
Opusculum3  of  John,  Patriarch  of  Antioch).  And  Car- 
dinal Cusanus4,  who  lived  at  the  same  time,  makes 

1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  I.  c.  11.] 

2  ['  Dispatcher  Dispatcht,'  chap.  11.  sect.  ii.  §  15 :  Works,  Vol. 
ii.  p.  197.] 

3  [This  was  a  treatise  '  de  Superioritate  Concilii  supra  Papam,' 
publicly  recited  at  Basle  as  above  mentioned.    It  is  printed  among 
the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Basle.   Vid.  Concil.  ed.  Labb.  Tom.  xn. 
p.  912.]  4  De  Concord.  Cath.  Lib.  n.  c.  23. 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  265 

them  words  of  precept,  not  of  institution ;  and  both 
are  agreeable  to  the  interpretation  of  the  ancients1. 

It  is  time  to  look  further.      The  third  great  place  Luke  xxii. 

32 

of  argument  is  Luke  xxii.  32 :  "  Thou  being  con- 
verted, strengthen  thy  brethren."  Whence  Hart2  rea- 
sons thus  :  '  Christ  commands  Peter  to  strengthen  his 
brethren,  and  his  brethren  were  the  Apostles ;  there- 
fore he  was  to  strengthen  the  Apostles,  and  by  conse- 
quence he  must  be  their  Supreme  Head.' 

When  Hart  urged  this  argument  with  all  his  wit  Answer. 
and  might,  and  Dr  Rainolds  had  made  it  evident, 
there  is  no  authority  given  by  the  words,  nor  carried 
in  the  word  '  strengthen,'  that  equals  and  inferiors  are 
not  capable  of  it  as  well  as  superiors — much  less  can 
it  necessarily  imply  a  supremacy  over  the  whole 
Church — he  confesseth  with  Stapleton,  that  Christ 
gave  the  power  to  Peter  after  his  resurrection,  when 
he  said  to  him,  '  Feed  my  lambs,'  (which  we  have 
weighed  before),  but  those  words  of  strengthening, 
&c.,  he  spake  before  his  death,  and  did  but  futuram 
insinuaverat,  l  insinuate  therein,'  and  (as  Hart's  word3 
is)  give  an  inkling  that  he  would  make  him  Supreme 
Head ;  then  if  he  did  not  make  him  so  afterward,  he 
did  it  not  at  all. 

That  Peter  had  power  over  the  rest  of  the  Apos-  Acts  i.  15. 
ties,  would  be  proved  (as  before)  from  the  promise 
and  commission  of  Christ,  so  at  last  by  Peter's  execu- 


1  [See  Dr.  Hammond,  as  above,  p.  196,  and  for  a  great  number 
of  other  authorities,  Mr.  Palmer's  '  Treatise  on  the  Church/  Part 
VH.  chap.  1.] 

2  [Conference,  p.  103.] 
»  [p.  110.] 


266  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

tion ;   he  proposed  the  election  of  a  new  Apostle  in 
the  room  of  Judas. 

Answer.  Therefore  he  was  speaker  (at  least  pro  tempore)  in 

the  assembly,  but  not  a  prince  or  supreme  Monarch. 

Objection.  But  St  Chrysostom  saith,  'that  though  Peter's 
modesty  was  commendable  for  doing  all  things  by 
common  advice  and  consent,  and  nothing  by  his  own 
authority';  yet  addeth,  that  'no  doubt  it  was  lawful 
for  Peter  to  have  chosen  Matthias  himself1.' 

Yet  the  same  Father  calls  this  seat  given  him  by 
the  rest  'a  Primacy2,'  not  a  Supremacy.  Again,  he 
derives  this  Primacy  from  the  modesty  of  the  Apos- 
tles (not  the  donation  of  Christ),  as  Hart3  confesseth. 
But  indeed  the  Father  exceeded  in  his  charity ;  and 
it  is  he  that  said  that  Peter  might  have  chosen  one 
himself;  the  Scripture  saith  not  that  he  might,  yea  it 
saith  he  did  not.  And  the  argument  from  Peter's 
execution  of  this  power  is  come  to  this,  that  he  did 
not  execute  it. 

Besides,  many  Fathers  (and  in  Council  too)  toge- 
ther with  St  Cyprian  pronounce,  that  Peter  proposing 
the  matter,  to  the  end  it  might  be  carried  by  com- 
mon advice  and  voice,  did  according  to  the  lessons 
and  precepts  of  God ;  therefore,  jure  Divino,  they 
thought  Peter  had  no  such  power,  as  Dr  Rainolds4 
shews. 

Acts xv. 7,         But  'when  Peter  had  been  heard,  all  the  multi- 

etc. 

1  [This  is  the  objection  of  Hart  against  Rainolds,  p.  115.     He 
is  referring  to  St.  Chrysostom,  in  Act.  Apostol.  Horn.  HI.  ;   Opp. 
Tom.  ix.  p.  25,  B;  ed.  Paris.  1731.] 

2  [In  Matt.  Horn.  L.  (al.  LI.);  Opp.  Tom.  VH.  p.  515,  E.     The 
original  is  ru>t>  npaTfiwv,  K.T.  X.-] 

3  [Ibid.  p.  116.]  *  [p.  119.] 


CHAP.  XX.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  267 

tude  held  their  peace,  and  James  and  all  the  Elders 
did  agree  unto  Peter's  sentence.' 

What  is  this  to  prove  his  supremacy  ?  Because  Answer, 
the  Council,  having  heard  Gamaliel1,  agreed  to  him, 
was  therefore  Gamaliel  (a  Pharisee,  a  doctor  of  the 
law,  whom  all  the  people  honoured,)  Supreme  Head, 
and  superior  to  the  High-priest  and  Council  ?  And  if 
Jerome2  say,  Peter  was  ' princeps  decreti,'  he  acknow- 
ledged perhaps  the  reason,  the  motion,  and  the  de- 
livery or  declaration  of  it,  principally  to  Peter,  the 
first  author  of  the  sentence,  as  the  same  Jerome3  calls 
him,  and  explains  himself.  So  was  Tully  called4,  viz. 
'  prince  of  decrees,'  when  he  was  neither  president 
nor  prince  of  the  Senate. 

We  conclude  that  Peter  had  no  superiority  of 
power  or  government  over  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  or 
the  whole  Church ;  because  it  neither  was  promised 
him,  nor  given  him,  nor  executed  by  him,  notwith- 
standing Bellarmine's5  twenty-eight  prerogatives  of 
St  Peter ; — from  which  I  presume  none  can  be  so 
hardy  as  to  venture  to  argue,  many  of  them  being 
uncertain,  some  vain  and  trifling,  and  some  common 
with  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  but  neither  divisim  or 
conjunctiva  sufficient  to  make  or  to  evince  any  real 
supremacy  of  power  in  St  Peter. 

i  [Acts  v.  34.] 

a  [Epist.  ad  Augustin.  LXXV.   (al.  xi.)  Opp.  Augustin.  Tom.   11. 
col.  130,  A;  ed.  Antverp.  1700.] 
3  [Ibid,  c.] 

*  Pro  Corn.  Balbo  [c.  xxvii. :  "  Harum  ego  sentontiarum  prin- 
ceps et  auctor  fui."] 

*  [See  following  chapter,  sect,  i.] 


268  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XX. 

It  is  indeed  said  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  that  the 
government  of  the  world  and  the  care  of  the  whole 
Church  was  committed  to  Peter ;  but  it  is  plain  they 
speak  of  his  Apostleship, — for  they  say  the  same  of 
Paul1,  and  the  like  of  Timothy2,  who  was  never  re- 
puted universal  monarch.  '  Paul  and  Peter  had  two 
different  primacies3,'  had  the  '  same  dignity,'  '  were 
equal4.' 

1  [Dr.  Barrow  (Treatise    on  the  Pope's  Supremacy;    Works, 
Vol.  i.  p.  687;  ed.  1716)  gives  five  instances  of  this  usage  from 
St.  Chrysostom  only.] 

2  [The  words  are,   T^v  -rijs  olKovp.tvT)s  Trpoa-raa-iav  eyK(xtipurp.fvos. 
Homil.  vi.  adv.  Judseos:  Opp.  Tom.  i.  p.  142.] 

3  S.  Ambros.  [The  following  seems  to  be  the  passage  referred  to : 
"Petrum  solum  nominat,   et  sibi  comparat,  quia  primatum  ipse 
acceperat  ad  fundandam  ecclesiam ;  se  quoque  pari  modo  electum, 
ut  primatum  habeat  in  fundandis  gentium  ecclesiis."    In  Epist.  ad 
Galat.  cap.  ii. :  Opp.  Tom.  in.  col.  470,  471 ;  ed.  Paris.  1614.] 

4  Chrysost.   [Kat  SeiKwcri  avTols  6fj,OTi.fj.ov  ovra  \onrov,  xal  ov   rols 
aXXot?  eavrbv,  dXXa  TO>  Kopv<pat<p  o-vyKpivtt,  SCIKVVS  OTI  rr}s  auTJjy  «acr- 
ros  airfXavcrev  agios.      In  cap.  ii.  Epist.  ad  Galat.  Opp.  Tom.  x. 
pp.  684,  685 ;  ed.  Paris.  1732.     See  also  St.  Chrysostom  and  O3cu- 
menius,  on  2  Cor.  xii.  11.] 


CHAPTER   XXI. 

OF  THE   POPE'S  SUCCESSION. 


I  HAVE  laboured  the  more  to  scatter  the  pretences 
of  Saint  Peter's  supremacy,  because  (though  the 
consequence  be  not  good  from  that  to  the  Pope's, 
yet)  it  is  a  demonstration,  that  if  Saint  Peter  had  it 
not,  the  Pope  cannot  have  it,  as  his  Successor,  jure 
Divino. 

We  must  leave  Saint  Peter's  supremacy  to  stand 
or  fall  to  the  reason  of  the  discourse  before,  and 
must  now  examine  the  plea  of  Successor,  and  the 
Pope's  Authority  over  the  Church,  as  he  is  Successor 
to  Saint  Peter. 

Now  that  it  may  appear  we  love  not  quarrelling, 
we  shall  not  dispute  whether  Peter  was  a  Bishop  of 
a  particular  See  ?  Whether  he  was  ever  at  Rome  ? 
Whether  Rome  was  at  first  converted  by  him  ?  Whe- 
ther he  was  Bishop  of  Rome  ?  Whether  he  resided 
there  for  any  considerable  time?  Whether  he  died 
there  ?  Whether  the  Pope  had  any  honour  as  his 
Successor  ?  Or  lastly,  whether  the  Pope  had  the 
primacy  of  all  Bishops  in  the  former  ages  of  the 
Church  ?  It  is  well  known  that  few  adversaries  would 
let  you  run  away  quietly  with  all  or  any  one  of  these. 

Yet  there  are  two  things  that  I  shrewdly  ques- 
tion :  (1)  Whether  the  Pope  had  at  first  the  Primacy 
itself,  as  Successor  of  Saint  Peter.  (2)  Much  more, 


270  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

whether  by  that  succession  he  received  supreme  power 
over  the  whole  Church,  jure  Divino.  The  main  point 
to  be  proved  is  the  last,  yet  it  may  be  worth  the  while 
to  examine  the  first. 


SECTION  I. 

WHETHER  THE  PRIMACY   OF  PETER  DESCENDED 
TO  THE  BISHOPS   OF   ROME  ?— NEG. 

IT  doth  not  appear  that  Saint  Peter  had  his  Pri- 
macy over  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  as  Bishop, 
much  less  as  Bishop  of  Rome ;  but  the  contrary  doth 
appear. 

(1)  Because  he  was  Primate  long  before  he  was 
Bishop,  if  he  was  so  at  all ;  and  therefore,  if  he  was 
Primate,  ratione  muneris,  or  with  respect  to  any  office, 
it  was  that  of  his  Apostleship,  and  not  of  his  Episco- 
pacy :  the  consequence  then  is  evident,  that  the  Pope 
could  not  succeed  Saint  Peter  in  the  Primacy,  as 
Bishop  of  Rome,  or  indeed  in  any  sense ;  for  the 
apostolical  office  was  extraordinary,  and  did  not  de- 
scend by  succession,  as  the  Romanists  yield. 

That  Saint  Peter  was  Primate,  not  as  Bishop,  but 
was  antecedently  so,  it  is  most  apparent  upon  the 
grounds  of  it  allowed  and  pleaded  by  our  adversaries  ; 
because  he  was  first  called  to  the  Apostleship ;  he  was 
named  '  the  first'  of  the  Apostles ;  he  had  the  first 
promise  of  the  keys ;  he  was  the  first  converter  of 
the  Gentiles,  &c.  '  Privilegium  personate  cum  persona 
extinguitur' 


CHAP.  XXI.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  271 

(2)   Indeed  the  Primacy  of  Saint  Peter  arose  from  Reason  n. 
such  personal  respects  and  grounds  \  that  rendered  it  ^onarre- 
incapable   of  succession ;    and  therefore  none  could spec 
derive  that  prerogative,  though  they  had  succeeded 
him  both  as  Bishop  and  Apostle. 

These  prerogatives  of  Saint  Peter,  which  Bellar- 
mine2  himself  lays  down  as  the  grounds  and  argu- 
ments of  his  Primacy,  are  generally  such — at  least  all 
of  them  that  appear  in  the  Scriptures,  all  of  them  but 
such — as  beg  the  question,  while  the  others  depend 
on  notorious  fables  : — as  appears  at  first  view. 

(1)     Saint  Peter  was  Primate,  because  his  name  21  Prero- 
gatives, ac- 

was  changed  by  Christ.  (2)  Because  he  was  always  cording  to 
first  named.  (3)  He  alone  walked  on  the  waters.  (4)  mine. 
He  had  peculiar  revelation.  (5)  He  paid  tribute  with 
Christ.  (6)  He  was  the  chief  in  the  miraculous  fish- 
ing. (7)  He  is  commanded  to  strengthen  his  brethren. 
(8)  He  was  the  first  of  the  Apostles  that  saw  Christ 
risen  from  the  dead.  (9).  His  feet  Christ  first  washed. 
(10)  Christ  foretold  his  death  to  him  alone.  (11)  He 
was  president  at  the  election  of  Matthias.  (12)  He 
first  preached  after  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given.  (13) 
He  did  the  first  miracle.  (14)  He  condemned  the 
hypocrisy  of  Ananias,  &c.  (15)  He  passed  through 
all  quarters,  Acts  ix.  32.  (16)  He  first  preached  to 
the  Gentiles.  (17)  He  was  miraculously  delivered  out 
of  prison.  (18)  Paul  envied  him.  (19)  Christ  bap- 
tized him  alone.  (20)  He  detected  and  condemned 

1  [See,  on  the  personal  pre-eminence  of  St.  Peter,  Barrow's  Trea- 
tise on  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  Suppos.  I.] 

a  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  i.,  cap.  xvii.  et  seqq. 


272  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXL 

Simon  Magus.  (21)  He  spake  first  in  the  Council, 
Acts  xv. 

These  are  twenty-one  of  the  prerogatives  of  Saint 
Peter,  which  Bellarmine  makes  grounds  and  argu- 
ments of  his  Primacy ;  which,  if  one  say  them  over, 
and  endeavour  to  apply  them  to  any  but  Saint  Peter's 

Argument,  (individual)  person,  it  will  appear  impossible ;  the  rea- 
sons of  this  Primacy  cannot  be  supposed  out  of  Pe- 
ter's person ;  therefore  the  Primacy  cannot  pass  to 
his  Successor.  Mark  them,  and  you  will  find  they  are 
all  either  acts  done  by  Saint  Peter,  or  graces  received 
by  him ;  and  so  personally  in  him,  that  whatsoever 
depends  on  them  must  needs  die  with  Saint  Peter's 
person,  and  cannot  be  inherited  by  his  Successor. 

Indeed,  this  Primacy  rose  of  such  grounds,  and 
was  in  Saint  Peter  by  consequence  of  them ;  had  the 
Primacy  been  an  office,  or  a  grace  given,  of  or  in  or 
for  itself,  without  respect  to  any  of  these  grounds, 
there  had  been  some  shadow  (and  but  a  shadow)  for  its 
succession ;  but  it  having  an  essential  dependence  on 
those  reasons  which  were  peculiar  and  proper  to  Saint 
Peter's  person,  they  cease  together. 

Other  se-  But,  lest  it  should  be  thought,  that  there  is  more 

ven  Prero- 
gatives,     of  argument  in  the  other  seven  prerogatives  which 

Bellarmine  mentioned1,  I  beg  my  reader's  pardon  to 
set  them  down  also.  The  first  is,  perpetual  stability 
is  promised  to  Peter  and  his  See.  (2)  He  alone  was 
ordained  Bishop  by  Christ,  and  the  rest  by  him2. 

1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  i.  c.  xxiii.  xxiv.] 

2  [The  authority  annexed  by  Fulwood  is  an  epistle  ascribed  to 
Anacletus,  fourth  bishop  of  Rome,  where  it  is  asserted,  'In  Novo 


CHAP.  XXI  ]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  273 

He  placed  his  seat  at  Rome.  (4)  Christ  appeared  to 
him  a  little  before  he  died ;  therefore  Primate  ?  and 
his  successor  too?  (5)  The  Churches  which  he 
founded  were  always  counted  patriarchal.  (6)  The 
feast  of  his  chair  was  celebrated.  (7)  And  his  name 
added  to  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  in  literis  formatis. 
What  then  was  he  not  yet  Primate  before  all  this? 
Was  not  his  Primacy  founded  upon  the  reasons  above  ? 
Will  you  say  he  was  not  Primate,  or  by  virtue  of  his 
Primacy  was  not  President  in  the  two  Councils  men- 
tioned ?  And  if  that  be  more  than  confessed,  (even 
pleaded  by  you),  must  not  the  former  personal  re- 
spects be  the  grounds  of  that  Primacy  ?  And  is  it 
possible  for  such  a  Primacy  by  succession  to  descend 
to  any  other  person  ? — None,  that  consider,  will  say  it. 

The  Fathers  acknowledge  a  Primacy  in  St  Peter,  Fathers. 
but  upon  such  personal  grounds  as  are  mentioned. 
Saint  Peter  was  '  called  a  rock,'  saith  Saint  Ambrose ! 
(if  the  book  be  his),  '  because  he  was  the  first  that 
laid  the  foundation  of  faith  among  the  nations.'  Ce- 
rameus2  gives  him  likewise,  primus  aditus  azdificationis 
spiritualis. 

Testamento  post  Christum  Dominum  a  Petro  sacerdotalis  coepit 
ordo,'  &c.  Vid.  Gratian.  Decret.,  Part.  i. :  Distinct,  xxi.  c.  ii.  That 
the  epistle  is  spurious  was  demonstrated  by  Bp.  Jewel, '  Controversy 
with  Harding,'  pp.  341,  342 ;  ed.  Parker  Soc.  1843.] 

1  ["  Petra  enim  dicitur  eo  quod  primus  in  nationibus  fidei  fun- 
damenta  posuerit."   Concio  n.,  de   Sanctis.     According  to  Cave, 
(Histor.  Liter,  sub  Ambros.)  these  Sermons  are  by  some  attributed 
to  Maximus  of  Turin.] 

2  [This  writer  was  Tlwophanes  Cerameus,  a  Sicilian  archbishop 
of  the  llth  Century.     He  wrote  numerous  homilies,  which  were 
printed  at   Paris,  1644;  the   passage  to   which   Full  wood   refers, 

18 


274  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

Objection.          Christianorum  Pontifex  primus  Petrus,  et  reliquoruni 

Apostolorum  Princeps,  propter  virtutis   amplitudinem1. 
Answer.  jje  Was  Prince,  'for  the  greatness  of  his  virtue.' 

Virtue  is  a  personal  gift,  and  cannot  pass  by  succession. 
Objection.          Saint  Chrysostom,   indeed,   is   urged   against   us, 

'  Curam,   turn  Petro,    turn   Petri  successoribus   commit- 

tebat2. 
Answer.  j^  jg  granted,  Peter  had  his   successors  in  time 

and  place,  and  that  is  all  the  words,  /cat  rots  /xer'  e«e?i/oi/ 

(to   be   rendered    'those   which   followed   him'),   will 

conclude. 

However,  admit  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did  succeed 

Saint  Peter  in  his  'care',  as  the  word  is ;  cloth  it  follow 

that  he  succeeded  him  in  his  Primacy  ? — which  hath 

appeared  not  capable  of  succession. 

Application  of  Section  I. 

ence'i  Therefore,    I  conclude  that  whatsoever  Primacy 

the  Bishop  of  Rome  obtained  in  the  ancient  Church, 
it  was  not  the  Primacy  of  Saint  Peter,  or  as  he  was 
successor  of  Saint  Peter  in  his  Primacy ;  but  he  ob- 
tained it  upon  other  grounds,  not  those  antecedent  in 
Saint  Peter,  but  such  as  arose  afterwards,  and  were 
peculiar  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  A  note  as  easy  to 
be  observed  by  such  as  look  into  the  practice  of  the 

is  in  Homil.  ILIX.  ;  the  Greek  being  dfoppri  K.  T.  X.  For  a  simihar 
passage  see  Tertullian,  de  Pudicitia,  c,  xxr.] 

1  Euseb.  [Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  n.  c.  14.     The  Greek,  however,  is  far 
less  grandiloquent :   Tbv  Kaprepov  KOI  p.tyav  T£>V  airo(rr6Ku>v,  rov  dpfTrjs 
evfica  T£>V  \onr5>v  airavrmv  ivporiyopov,  Tlerpov,  K.  T.X.] 

2  De  Sacerdotio,  [Lib.  II.  c.  1,  <W  ra  n-po/Sara  KTIJO-IJTOI  TUVTO,  a  roi 
Tltrput  KOI  TOIS  fj.eT  (Kfivov  svf 


CHAP.  XXI.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  275 

ancient  Church,  as  of  great  caution  and  use  in  this 
controversy.  The  grounds  are  known  to  be  such  as 
these,  because  Rome  was  the  imperial  city,  because 
the  Church  of  Rome  was  then  most  famous  for  the 
Christian  faith,  because  she  was  the  most  noted  seat 
of  true  tradition,  because  her  Bishops  were  most 
eminent  for  piety,  learning,  and  a  charitable  care  for 
other  Churches  ;  and  lastly,  perhaps,  because  Saint 
Peter  had  been  Bishop  there  his  memory  might  de- 
flect some  honour,  at  least  by  way  of  motive,  on  the 
Bishop  of  Rome ; — as  the  Council  of  Sardica  moveth l, 
'  If  it  please  you,  let  us  honour  the  memory  of  Saint 
Peter :'  -but  though  the  memory  of  Saint  Peter  might 
be  used  as  an  argument  of  the  Pope's  priority,  it  is 
far  from  concluding  his  inheriting  Saint  Peter's  Pri- 
macy ;  though  he  had  honour  by  being  his  successor. 

(2)  It  further  follows,  that  the  Primacy  of  that  inference 
see    heretofore   was    not  jure   Divino,   but  from   the  Primacy 

not  Jure 

civility  of  the  world,  and  the  courtesy  of  princes,  and  Divino. 
the  gratitude  of  the  Church. 

Indeed,  this  Primacy  was  not  an  office,  but  an 
honour  ;  and  that  honour  was  not  given  by  any  solemn 
grant  of  God  or  man,  but  seems  to  have  gained  upon 
the  world  insensibly,  and  by  degrees,  till  it  became  a 
custom,  as  the  Council  of  Nice 2  intimates. 

(3)  Lastly,  it  follows  that  this  Primacy  was  not  Inference 
derived  to  the  succeeding  Bishops  of  Rome  ;  it  stand-  **<* in 

succeeding 

ing  upon  such  temporary  grounds  as  too  soon  failed :  Popes, 
for  when  that  which  was  the  cause  of  it  ceased,  no 
wonder  if  the  honour  was  denied.     When  the  faith  of 
the  see  was  turned  to  infidelity,  and  blasphemy,  and 

i  [See  above,  p.  63.]  2  [See  above,  p.  34.] 

18 — 2 


276  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

atheism,  and  sorcery,  (as  their  own  men  say) ;  when 
their  piety  was  turned  into  such  villanies  of  pride, 
simony,  uncleanness,  and  monstrous  lewdness,  (as 
themselves  report) ;  when  their  care  and  vigilance  was 
turned  into  methods  of  wasting  and  destroying  the 
Churches l ;  when  the  exordium  unitatis  was  turned 
into  a  head  of  Schism  and  division ;  no  wonder  that 
the  Primacy  and  honour  of  the  See  of  Rome,  which 
was  raised  and  stood  upon  the  contrary  grounds,  was 
at  length  discovered  to  be  groundless,  and  the  former 
Primacy  which  stood  on  courtesy,  and  was  exalted  by 
an  usurped  supremacy  and  tyranny,  was  thrown  off 
by  us,  and  our  ancient  liberty  is  repossessed,  and  the 
glory  of  Rome  is  so  far  departed. 


SECTION    II. 

WHETHER  THE  POPE  BE  SUPREME  AS  SUCCESSOR  OF 
PETER  BY  DIVINE  RIGHT?— NEG.  NOT  PRIMATE  AS 
SUCH— PETER  HIMSELF  NOT  SUPREME— POPE  DID 
NOT  SUCCEED  HIM  AT  ALL. 

THIS  is  the  last  refuge,  and  the  meaning  of  it  is, 
that  our  Saviour  made  Saint  Peter  universal  Mo- 
narch of  the  whole  Church,  and  intended  the  Pope  of 
Rome  should  succeed  him  in  that  power. 

All  possible  defence  herein  hath  been  prevented ; 
for  if  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  succeed  him  in  his 
Primacy,  how  should  he  succeed  him  in  his  Supre- 
macy ?  Again,  if  Saint  Peter  had  no  such  Supremacy, 

1  [See  a  collection  of  papal  enormities  in  Rainolds'  '  Conference 
with  Hart,'  pp.  275,  et  seqq.] 


<Jii.u>.  XXI.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  277 

as  hath  appeared,  how  should  the  Pope  receive  it  as 
his  successor  ?  Besides,  whatever  power  Saint  Peter 
had,  it  doth  no  way  appear  that  the  Pope  should  suc- 
ceed him  in  it ;  much  less  in  our  Saviour's  intention, 
or  by  Divine  right. 

However,  let  us  try  their  colours.  Will  they 
maintain  it,  that  Christ  appointed  the  Bishops  of 
Rome  to  succeed  St  Peter  in  so  great  a  power  ?  The 
claim  is  considerable ;  the  whole  world  in  all  ages  is 
concerned ;  none  could  give  this  privilege  of  suc- 
cession but  the  giver  of  the  power .  But  where  did 
He  do  it  ?  Where  or  how,  when  or  by  whom,  was  it 
expressed?  Should  not  the  grant  of  so  great  an 
empire,  wherein  all  are  so  highly  concerned,  espe- 
cially when  it  is  disputed  and  pretended,  be  pro- 
duced ? 

Instead  of  plain  proof  we  are  put  off  with  obscure 
and  vanishing  shadows,  such  as  follow. 


I 


SECTION  III. 
ARGUMENT  I.— PETER  ASSIGNED  IT. 

N  STEAD  of  proving  that  Christ  did,  they  say  that  Argu- 
St  Peter,  when  he  died,  bestowed  the  Supremacy 


upon  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  in  words  to  this  effect,  as 
Hart1  expresseth  them  :  "I  ordain  this  Clement  to  be 
your  Bishop,  unto  whom  alone  I  commit  the  chair  of 
my  preaching  and  doctrine ;  and  I  give  to  him  that 

i  ['  Conference  with  Rainolds,'  p.  220,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Epistle  '  ad  Jacobum,  Fratrem  Domini.'] 


278  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

power  of  binding  and  loosing,  which  Christ  gave  to 
me." 

And  what  then  ?  '  I  ordain ' — then  he  had  it  not, 
as  Peter's  successor  by  Divine  right,  but  as  a  gift 
and  legacy  of  St  Peter.  (2)  'This  Clement' — a  foul 
blot  to  the  story;  for  it  is  plain  in  records1,  that 
Linus  continued  Bishop  eleven  years  after  Peter's 
death,  and  Cletus  twelve  after  Linus,  before  Clemens 
had  the  chair.  '  Your  Bishop' — that  is  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  ;  what  is  this  to  the  Universal  Bishop  ?  'And  I 
give  to  him ' — what  ?  The  chair  of  preaching  and 
doctrine,  and  the  power  of  the  keys,  viz.  no  more 
than  is  given  to  every  Bishop  at  his  Ordination.  Now 
it  is  observable,  though  this  pitiful  story  signify  just 
nothing,  yet  what  strange  arts  and  stretches  of  in- 
vention are  forced  to  support  it2,  and  to  render  it 
possible,  though  all  in  vain. 


SECTION  IV. 

ARGUMENT  II.— BISHOP   OF  ANTIOCH  DID  NOT 
SUCCEED— ERGO,   OF    ROME. 

BELLARMINE3  argues  more  subtilly,  yet  sup- 
poseth  more  strongly  than  he  argues.  Pontifex 
Romanus,  '  the  High-priest  of  Rome,'  succeeded  St 
Peter  (dying  at  Rome)  in  his  whole  dignity  and  power ; 
for  there  was  never  any  that  affirmed  himself  to  be 
St  Peter's  successor  any  way,  or  was  accounted  for 

1  [See  Bp.  Pearson's  'Dissertation;'  Minor  Theological  Works, 
Vol.  n.  pp.  436,  et  seqq.] 

2  Vid.  Rainolds  and  Hart,  [pp.  220,  et  eeqq.] 

3  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  cap.  iv.] 


CHAP.  XXL]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  279 

such,  besides  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  the  Bishop  of 
Antioch ;  but  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  did  not  succeed 
St  Peter,  in  pontificatu  Ecclesice,  totius ;  therefore  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  did. 

(1)  He  supposeth  that  St  Peter's  successor  sue-  Answer*, 
ceeded  him  in  all  dignity  and  power,  but  it  is  ac- 
knowledged by  his  friends,  there  was  no  succession 
of  the  apostolic,  but  only  of  the  episcopal  power. 
(2)  If  so,  then  Linus,  Cletus,  and  Clemens,  should 
have  had  dignity  and  power  over  John  and  the 
other  Apostles  (who  lived  after  St  Peter),  as  their 
Pastor  and  Head,  according  to  their  own  way  of 
arguing.  (3)  Besides,  St  Peter  had  power  of  casting 
out  of  devils,  &c.,  and  doing  such  miracles  as  the 
Pope  pretends  not  to  do.  Lastly,  what  if  the  Pope 
affirms  that  he  is,  and  others  account  him  to  be,  St 
Peter's  successor  ?  The  point  requires  the  truth 
thereof  to  be  shewn,  jure  Divino. 


SECTION  V. 

ARGUMENT  III.— ST.  PETER  DIED  AT  ROME— THEN  DE 
FACTO,  NOT  DE  FIDE. 


B 


ELLARMINE  saith1,  the  succession  itself  is  jure  Argu- 

i  />    i      ment  in. 

Divino,  but  the  ratio  successionis  arose  out  of  the 


fact  of  St  Peter  planting  his  see  and  dying  at  Rome, 
and  not  from  Christ's  first  institution.  He  then  doubts 
whether  this  succession  be  so  according  to  his  own 
position,  (licet  fort*  non  sit  de  jure  Divino);  but  neither 
shews  the  succession  itself  to  be  Christ's  institution 
at  all,  nor  proves  the  tradition  of  Peter,  on  which  he 
1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  11.  c.  xii.] 


280  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

seems  to  lay  his  stress ;  and  we  may  guess  why  he 
doth  not. 

In  short,  if  the  succession  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
be  of  Faith,  it  is  so  either  in  jure  or  in  facto ;  but 
neither  is  proved.  Yea  the  contrary  is  acknowledged 
by  Bellarmine  himself.  Not  in  right,  because  that  is 
not  certo  Divinum,  as  Bellarmine  confesseth :  nor  in 
fact,  because  before  Peter's  death,  which  introduced 
no  change  in  the  Faith,  as  Bellarmine  also  confesseth, 
this  Succession  was  not  of  Faith. 

Indeed  it  is  well  observed1,  that  the  whole  weight 
of  Bellarmine's  reasoning  is  founded  in  fact ;  then 
where  is  the  jus  Divinum  ?  (2)  In  such  fact  of  Peter 
as  is  not  found  in  Scripture,  or  can  be  proved  any 
way.  (3)  In  such  fact  as  cannot  constitute  a  right 
either  Divine  or  human.  (4)  In  such  fact  as  cannot 
conclude  a  right,  in  the  sense  of  the  most  learned 
Romanists 2 ;  who  contend,  that  the  union  of  the 
bishopric  of  the  City  and  the  World,  is  only  per  acci- 
dens,  and  not  jure  Divino,  vel  imperio  Christi. 

But  when  the  uncertainty  of  that  fact,  on  which 
the  right  of  so  great  and  vast  an  empire  is  raised,  is 
considered,  what  further  answer  can  be  expected? 
For  is  it  not  uncertain  whether  Peter  were  ever  at 
Rome3?  Or  whether  he  was  ever  Bishop  of  Rome? 
Or  whether  he  died  at  Rome  ?  Or  whether  Christ 
called  him  back  that  he  might  die  at  Rome?  Or 

1  [The  allusion  has  not  been  discovered.] 

2  Scotus,  in  Lib.   iv.    Sentent.   Distinct,   xxiv. ;    Cordubensis 
[Antonius],  [Tractat.  Venet.  1569],  Lib.  iv.  Qusest.  I. ;  Cajetan,  de 
Primat.  Papse,  c.  xxiii. ;  Bannes,  in  n.  [i.  e.  in  Partem  secundam 
S.  Thomas.]  Qusest.  I.  §  10.  [Duaci,  1615.] 

3  [These  points  are  discussed  by  Rainolds  and  Hart,  'Conference,' 
pp.  217,  et  seqq.] 


CHAP.  XXL]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  281 

whether  he  ordained  Clement  to  succeed  him  at  Rome  ? 
Indeed  there  is  little  else  certain  about  the  matter 
but  this,  that  Peter  did  not  derive  to  him  that  suc- 
ceeded him,  and  his  successors  for  ever,  his  whole 
dignity  and  power,  and  a  greater  authority  than  he 
had  himself,  jure  Divino, 

But  if  we  allow  all  the  uncertainties  mentioned  to 
be  most  certain,  we  need  not  fear  to  look  the  argu- 
ment, with  all  its  attendants  and  strength,  in  the  face. 
Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome,  was  warned  by  Christ 
immediately  to  place  his  seat  at  Rome,  to  stay  and 
die  at  Rome,  and  before  he  died,  he  appointed  one  to 
succeed  him  in  his  bishopric  at  Rome  ;  therefore  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  successively  are  Universal  Pastors, 
and  have  Supreme  Power  over  the  whole  Church,  jure 
Divino.  Is  not  the  cause  rendered  suspicious  by  such 
arguments  ?  and  indeed  desperate,  that  needs  them, 
and  has  no  better? 


SECTION  VI. 
ARGUMENT  IV.— COUNCILS— POPES— FATHERS. 

BELLARMINE l  tells  us  boldly  that  the  Primacy  Argument, 
of  the  Roman  High-priest  is  proved  out  of  the 
Councils,  the  testimonies  of  Popes,  by  the  consent  of 
the  Fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin. 

These  great  words  are  no  arguments  ;  the  matter  Answer, 
hath  been  examined  under  all  these  topics,  and  not 
one  of  them  proves  a  Supremacy  of  power  over  the 
1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  13.] 


282  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.          [CHAP.  XXI. 

whole  Church  to  have  been  anciently  in  the  Pope, 
much  less  from  the  beginning  and  jure  Divino ;  espe- 
cially when  St  Augustine  and  the  Greek  Fathers 
directly  opposed  it  as  an  usurpation1. 

A  primacy  of  order  is  not  in  the  question,  though 
that  also  was  obtained  by  the  ancient  Popes  only 
more  humano,  and  on  temporary  reasons,  as  hath 
before  appeared.  But  as  a  learned  man  saith,  the 
Primacy  of  a  monarchical  power  in  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  was  never  affirmed  by  any  ancient  Council,  or 
by  any  one  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  or  so  much  as 
dreamt  of;  and  at  what  time  afterwards  the  Pope 
took  upon  him  to  be  a  monarch,  it  should  be  inquired 
quo  jure,  '  by  what  right '  he  did  so, — whether  by  Di- 
vine, human,  or  altogether  by  his  own,  i.e.  no  right. 


SECTION  VII. 

ARGUMENT   V.— THE    PREVENTION    OF  SCHISM— 
ST.   JEROME. 

'  A  PRIMACY  was  given  to  Peter  for  preventing 
-LA.  Schism,'  as  St  Hierome  saith2.  Now  hence  they 
urge  that  a  mere  precedency  of  order  is  not  sufficient 
for  that. 

The  inference  is  not  Divine;  it  is  not  St  Hierome's; 
it  is  only  for  St  Peter,  and  reacheth  not  the  Pope. 
Besides  it  plainly  argues  a  mistake  of  St  Jerome's 
assertion,  and  would  force  him  to  a  contradiction.  For 
immediately  before,  he  teacheth  that  the  Church  is 

1  [See  above,  p.  77.]          2  [Adv.  Jovinian.  quoted  above,  p.  257.] 


CHAF.  XXL]  UNIVERSAL    PASTOR.  283 

built  equally  on  all  the  Apostles,  and  that  they  all 
receive  the  keys,  and  that  the  firmness  of  the  Church 
is  equally  grounded  on  them  all ;  so  that  what  Primacy 
he  meant,  it  consisted  with  equality,  as  monarchy 
cannot. 

Therefore  St  Hierome  more  plainly  in  another 
place  affirms l,  that  '  wherever  there  is  a  Bishop,  whe- 
ther at  Rome,  or  at  Eugubium,  ejusdem  meriti  est,  ejus- 
dem  est  et  sacerdotii'  Again,  ' it  is  neither  riches  nor 
poverty  which  makes  Bishops  higher  or  lower,'  but 
'  they  are  all  the  Apostles'  successors.' 


SECTION   VIII. 
ARGUMENT  VI.— CHURCH   COMMITTED   TO  HIM. 

ST  Chrysostom  saith2,  '  the  care  of  the  Church  was  Argu- 
committed,   as  to  Peter  so  to  his  Successors ; '  ™ 
therefore  the   Bishops  of  Rome,  being  Successors  of 
St  Peter  in  that  chair,  have  the  care,  and  consequently 
the  power  committed  to  them,  which  was  committed 
to  Peter. 

True ;  the  care  and  power  of  a  Bishop,  not  of  an  Answer. 
Apostle  or  Universal  Monarch  ;  the  commission  of  all 
other  Bishops  carried  care  and  power  also. 

But  indeed  this  place  proves  not  so  much  as  that 
the  Pope  is  Peter's  Successor  in  either,  much  less  jure 
Divino  (which  was  the  thing  to  be  proved):  /ecu  TOIS 

1  Epist.  ad  Evagrium,  [LXXXV.] 

2  [De  Sacerdotio,  Lib.  n.  c.  l.j 


284  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

(j.€T  eiteivov,  '  those  which  followed'  in  time  and  place, 
not  otherwise  ; — as  before  *. 


SECTION  IX. 

ARGUMENT  VII.—'  ONE    CHAIR'— OPTATUS- CYPRIAN- 
AMBROSE— ACACIUS. 

TflHERE  is  one  chair'  (saith  Optatus2)  quce  estprima 
J-  de  dotibus,  in  which  Peter  sat  first ;  Linus  suc- 
ceeded him,  and  Clemens  Linus.' 

Optatus  speaks  nothing  against  the  title  or  power 
of  other  chairs,  or  for  the  pre-eminence  of  power  in 
this  one  chair  above  the  rest. 

He  intended  not  to  exclude  the  other  apostolical 
seats  from  the  honour  or  power  of  chairs ;  for  he 
saith  as  well  that  James  sat  at  Jerusalem,  and  John 
at  Ephesus,  as  that  Peter  sat  at  Rome, — which  Ter- 
tullian  calls  '  apostolicas  cathedras,  all  presiding  in  their 
own  places3.' 

It  is  most  evident  that  Optatus  calls  the  chair  of 
Peter  one,  not  because  of  any  superiority  over  other 
apostolical  chairs,  but  because  of  the  unity  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  in  opposition  to  the  Donatists,  who 
set  up  another  chair  in  opposition  (altare  contra  altare} 
to  the  Catholic  Church. 

Bellarmine4  well  observes,  that  '  Optatus  followed 

1  [Sect,  i.] 

2  [De  Schismat.  Donatist.  Lib.  n.    c.  2.     On  this  passage  and 
the  context,  see  Mr.  Palmer's  'Jurisdiction  of  the  British  Episco- 
pacy,' pp.  217,  et  seqq.] 

3  De  Prsescript.  Hseret.  c.  xxxvi. 

4  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  xvi.] 


CHAP.  XXL]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  285 

the  doctrine  of  St  Cyprian,  who  said,  there  is  but  one  Cyprian. 
Church,  one  chair,'  &c.  And  out  of  St  Cyprian  him- 
self, his  meaning  therein  is  manifest  to  be  no  other 
than  a  specifical,  not  numerical  unity.  He  tells  us 
plainly  in  the  same  place l,  '  that  the  other  Apostles 
were  the  same  with  Peter,  equal  in  honour  and  power.' 
He  teacheth  that  'the  one  bishopric  is  dispersed... con- 
sisting of  the  unanimous  multitude  of  many  Bishops2 ; 
that  the  bishopric  is  but  one,  a  portion  whereof  is 
wholly  and  fully  held  of  every  Bishop Y  So  'there 
ought  to  be  but  one  Bishop  in  the  Catholic  Church4,' 
i.e.  all  Bishops  ought  to  be  one  in  faith  and  fellow- 
ship. 

But  is  it  not  prodigious  that  men  should  build  the 
Pope's  dominion  upon  the  doctrine  of  Saint  Cyprian 
and  Optatus  ?  The  latter  tells  us  roundly,  that  '  who- 
soever is  without  (the  communion  of)  seven  Churches 
of  Asia  is  an  alien,  in  effect,  calling  the  pope  infidel5 ; 
and  St  Cyprian  is  well  known  to  have  always  styled 
pope  Cornelius  'Brother6;'  to  have  severly  censured 
his  successor  Pope  Stephen,  contradicting  his  de- 
crees, opposing  the  Roman  Councils,  disclaiming  the 

1  [i.  e.  De  Unitate  Eccl.  §  3.] 

2  [Ep.  LV.  §16:   "Cum  sit  a  Christo  una  ecclesia  per  totum 
mundum  in  multa  membra  divisa,  item  episcopatus  unus  episcopo- 
rum  multorum  concordi  numerositate  diffusus."] 

s  [De  Unitate  Eccl.  $  4.] 

4  Epist.  Lib.  m.  ep.  xi.  [al.  XLVI.  §  2.    For  St.  Cyprian's  own 
explanation,  see  Epist.  XL.  §  4.] 

5  [i.  e.  on  the  Romish  hypothesis  of  unity.  Dr.  Hammond  ('An- 
swer to  Schism  Disarmed,'  Chap.  v.  sect  x.)  shews  the  true  mean- 
ing of  this  language.] 

«  [e.  g.  Epist.  LV.   The  Roman  clergy  style  Cyprian  '  benedictus 
papa,'  ep.  n.] 


286  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

Pope's  power  of  appeals,  and  contemning  his  excom- 
munications1. 

A  Council  in  Africk  under  St  Cyprian,  as  another 
wherein  St  Augustine  sate,  rejected  and  condemned 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  over  them,  as  is  fre- 
quently observed2 ;  and  why  do  men  endeavour  to 
blind  the  world  with  a  few  words  of  these  great  Fa- 
thers, contrary  to  the  known  language  of  their  actions 
and  course  of  life  ? 

The  sense  of  the  words  may  be  disputed,  but 
when  it  came  to  a  trial,  their  deeds  are  known  to 
have  shewed  their  mind  beyond  all  dispute. 

For  instance3,  Ambrose  calls  Pope  Damasus  'Rec- 
tor of  the  Church ;'  yet  it  is  known  that  he  would 
never  yield  his  senses  to  the  law  of  Rome  about 
Easter — for  which  the  Church  of  Milan  was  called  the 
'  Church  of  Ambrose '  670  years  after  his  death,  when 
the  clergy  of  Milan  withstood  the  legate  of  Nicholas 
II.,  saying,  '  the  Church  of  Ambrose  had  been  always 
free,  and  never  yet  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  Pope  of 
Rome  ;'  as  Baronius  notes4. 

Many  other  airy  titles  and  courtly  addresses,  given 
to  the  Pope  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  we  have 
observed  before  to  carry  some  colour  for  a  primacy 
of  order ;  but  no  wise  man  can  imagine  that  they  are 
an  evidence  or  ground,  much  less  a  formal  grant,  of 

1  [On  these  subjects,  see  the  Rev.  G.  A.  Poole's,  '  Testimony  of 
St.  Cyprian  against  Rome.'] 

2  [See  above,  pp.  76,  77.] 

3  [This  is  one  of  Bellarmine's  examples;  de  Romano  Pontif. 
Lib.  n.  c.  xvi.] 

4  Ad  an.  1059,  XLVI.     [See  also  Twysden's  Hist.  Vind.  p.  14, 
note  6,  new  ed.] 


CHAV.  XXI.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  287 

universal  dominion  :  seeing  scarce  one  of  them  but  is 
in  some  of  the  Fathers  (and  usually  by  the  same  Fa- 
thers) given  as  well  to  the  other  Apostles,  and  to 
other  Bishops,  as  to  Peter  and  the  Pope ;  and  so 
unfortunate  is  Bellarmine  in  his  instances,  that  usually 
the  very  same  place  carries  its  confutation. 

It  is  strange,  that  so  great  a  wit l  should  so  egre-  Acacius. 
giously  bewray  itself,  to  bring  in  Acacius,  Bishop  of 
Constantinople,  submitting,  as  it  were,  the  Eastern 
Church  to  the  See  of  Rome,  because  in  his  Epistle  to 
Pope  Simplicius  he  tells  him,  '  he  hath  the  care  of  all 
the  Churches :'  for  what  one  Bishop  of  those  times 
could  have  been  worse  pitched  upon  for  his  purpose  ? 
Who  ever  opposed  himself  more  fiercely  against  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  than  Acacius  ?  Who  more 
boldly  rejected  his  commands  than  this  Patriarch  ?  or 
stands  in  greater  opposition  to  Rome2  in  all  history  ? 
Yet  Acacius  must  be  the  instance  of  an  Eastern  Pa- 
triarch's recognition  of  the  see  of  Rome.  Acacius, 
phrenesi  quadam  abreptus  (as  Baronius3  hath  it)  adver- 
sus  Romanum  Pontificem  violentus  insurgit — Acacius, 
that  received4  those  whom  the  Pope  damned — Aca- 
cius, excommunicated5  by  the  Pope,  and  the  very 
head  of  the  Eastern  schism;  this  is  the  man  that  must 
witness  the  Pope's  supremacy  against  himself,  and  his 
own  and  his  Church's  famous  cause :  and  this,  by 
saying  in  a  letter  to  the  Pope  himself,  that  he  had  the 
care  of  all  Churches — a  title  given  to  Saint  Paul6  in 
the  days  of  Peter — to  Athanasius7,  in  the  time  of 

1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  xv.] 

2  [See  above,  p.  92.]  3  Ad  an.  478,  vi. 

*  Ad  an.  483,  LXXVITI.  6  Ad  an.  484.  xvn. 

6  [2  Cor.  xi.  28.]  7  [See  above,  p.  94,  note  3.] 


288  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.          [CHAP.  XXI. 

Pope  Julius— to  the  Bishops  of  France J,  in  the  time  of 
Pope  Eleutherius — and  to  Zecharias2  an  Archbishop, 
by  Pope  John  I. ; — but  conferred  no  monarchy  upon 
any  of  them. 

I  do  not  remember  that  I  have  yet  mentioned  the 
titles  of  Summus  Pontifex  and  Pontifex  Maximus,  which 
are  also  said3  to  carry  the  Pope's  supremacy  in  them ; 
but  it  is  impossible  any  wise  man  can  think  so. 
Azorius4,  a  Jesuit,  acknowledgeth  these  terms  may 
have  a  negative  sense  only,  and  Baronius5  saith,  they 
do  admit  equality.  In  this  sense,  Pope  Clemens6 
called  Saint  James  '  Bishop  of  Bishops ;'  and  Pope 
Leor  styled  all  Bishops  '  Summos  Pontifices ;'  and  the 
Bishops  of  the  East  write  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople under  the  title  of  '  Universal  Patriarch,'  and 
call  themselves  'chief  priests8.' 

1  [Epist.  Decretal.  Eleuther.  apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  1.590,  D.] 

2  [Apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  iv.  1605,  B.    For  other  examples  of 
this  universal  care,  see  Bingham,  Book  n.  Chap.  v.  sect.  i.J 

3  [Vid.  Bellarmin.  de  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  xxxi]. 

4  [The  reference  is  to  his  Instit.  Moral.  Part.  n.  Lib.  iv.  c.  4. 

5  [Annal.  Eccl.  ad  an.  397,  L,  where  several  instances  are  given.] 

6  [In  the  title  of  the  pseudo-epistle  '  ad  Jacobum  Fratrem  Do- 
mini.'] 

*  Ep.  LXXXVIII.  :  [Opp.  p.  159,  col.  1.  A;  ed.  Paris.  1639.] 
8  Epist.  ad  Tarasium.  [The  title  of  this  letter,  written  A.D.  787, 
is  as  follows  :  To>  dytcoraro)  (cai  /iaKapiwraTW  Kvpua  KOI  SecnroTrj  Tapa- 
<ri6>,  apxitTTio-KOTro)  K(ovcrTavTivov7r6\fCi)s  Kal  olnovfieviKM  Trarpidp^r),  ot 
TTjs  earns  apxtfpds  tv  Kvpi'w  ^atpetv.  Apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  vn. 
169.]' 


CHAI-.  XXI.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  289 

SECTION  X. 

THE  CONCLUSION  TOUCHING  THE  FATHERS. 

REASONS    WHY    NO     MORE    OF    THEM A     CHALLENGE    TOUCHING 

THEM NO     CONSENT    OF     FATHERS    IN    THE  POINT- EVIDENT 

IN     GENERAL     COUNCILS REASONS      OF     IT IlOMlc's     CONTRA- 
DICTION OF   FAITH POPE'S  SCHISM,   PERJURY,   &C. 

I  WAS  almost  tempted  to  have  gone  through  with 
a  particular  examination  of  all  the  titles  and 
phrases,  which  Bellarmine  hath  with  too  much  vanity 
gathered  out  of  the  Fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin, 
on  behalf  of  the  Pope's  Supremacy ;  but  considering 
they  are  most  of  them  very  frivolous  and  impertinent, 
and  that  I  conceive  I  have  not  omitted  any  one  that 
can  be  soberly  thought  material,  and  that  all  of  them 
have  been  frequently  answered  by  learned  Protestants, 
and  very  few  of  them  (so  answered)  thought  fit  to  be 
replied  to  by  our  adversaries, — I  thought  it  prudent 
to  excuse  that  very  needless  exercise,  and  I  hope  • 
none  will  account  me  blameworthy  for  it ;  but  if  any 
do  so,  I  offer  compensation  by  this  humble  challenge, 
upon  mature  deliberation  : — 

If  any  one  or  more  places  in  any  of  the  ancient  A  Chal- 
lenge. 

Fathers,  Greek  or  Latin,  shall  be  chosen  by  any  sober 
adversary,  and  argued  from,  as  evidence  of  the  Pope's 
Supremacy,  as  successor  to  Saint  Peter,  (God  giving 
me  life  and  health,)  I  shall  appear  and  undertake  the 
combat,  with  weapons  extant  in  our  English  writers ; 
— though  they  may  not  think  that  one  or  two,  or 
more,  passages  out  of  single  Fathers  are  sufficient  to 
bear  away  the  cause  in  so  great  a  point ;  seeing  they 
themselves  will  not  suffer  the  testimony  of  many  of 
19 


290  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

the  same  Fathers  to  carry  it  for  us  in  a  point  of  the 
least  concernment. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  most  confidently  conclude, 
that  the  Pope's  Supremacy  hath  not  the  consent  of 
the  primitive  Fathers,  as  Bellarmine  boasts,  and  that 
whatever  he  would  have  them  say,  they  did  not 
believe,  and  therefore  not  intend  to  say,  that  the 
Pope  was  absolute  Monarch  of  the  Catholic  Church ; 
and  consequently,  that  there  was  no  such  tradition  in 
the  primitive  ages,  either  before  or  during  the  time 
of  the  first  eight  general  Councils,  is  to  me  a  demon- 
stration, evident  for  these  reasons  : — 

The  first  eight  general  Councils,  being  all  called 
and  convened  by  the  authority  of  Emperors,  stand 
upon  record  as  a  notable  monument  of  the  former 
ages  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  prejudice  to  the  papal 
Monarch,  as  Saint  Peter's  successor,  in  those  times. 
"The  first  eight  general  Councils  (saith  Cusanus1)  were 
gathered  by  authority  of  Emperors,  and  not  of  Popes ; 
insomuch  that  Pope  Leo  was  glad  to  entreat  the  Em- 
peror Theodosius  the  younger  for  the  gathering  of  a 
Council  in  Italy,  and  could  not  obtain  it,  (non  obtinuit)." 

Every  one  of  these  Councils  opposed  this  pre- 
tended Monarchy  of  the  Pope ;  the  first,  by  stating 
the  limits  of  the  Roman  Diocese,  as  well  as  other 
Patriarchates ;  the  second,  by  concluding  the  Roman 
Primacy  not  to  be  grounded  upon  Divine  authority, 
and  setting  up  a  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  against 
the  Pope's  will ;  the  third,  by  inhibiting  any  Bishop 
whatsoever  to  ordain  Bishops  within  the  Isle  of  Cy- 
prus ;  the  fourth,  by  advancing  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
1  De  Concordant.  Cathol.  Lib.  u.  c.  xxv. 


CHAP.  XXL]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  291 

stantinople  to  equal  privileges  with  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  notwithstanding  the  Pope's  earnest  opposition 
against  it ;  the  fifth,  in  condemning  the  sentence  of 
Pope  Vigilius,  although  very  vehement  in  the  cause ; 
the  sixth  and  seventh,  in  condemning  Pope  Honorius 
of  heresy ;  and  the  eighth  and  last,  by  imposing  a 
Canon  upon  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  challenging 
obedience  thereunto1. 

This  must  pass  for  the  unquestionable  sense  of  Reason  m. 
the  Catholic  Church  in  those  ages,  viz.  for  the  space 
of  above  540  years  together,  from  the  first  general 
Council  of  Nice  ;  for  our  adversaries  themselves  style 
every  one  of  the  general  Councils  the  Catholic  Church; 
and  what  was  their  belief  was  the  faith  of  the  whole 
Church ;  and  what  was  their  belief  hath  appeared, 
viz.,  that  the  Pope  had  not  absolute  power  over  the 
Church,  jure  Divino, — an  opinion  abhorred  by  their 
contrary  sentences  and  practices. 

It  is  observed  by  a  learned  man2,  that  the  Fathers  Reason  iv. 
which  flourished  in  all  those  eight  Councils  were  in 
number  2280.  How  few  friends  had  the  Pope  left  to 
equal  and  countermand  them !  Or  what  authority  had 
they  to  do  it  ?  Yea,  name  one  eminent  Father,  either 
Greek  or  Latin,  that  you  count  a  friend  to  the  Pope, 
and  in  those  ages,  whose  name  we  cannot  shew  you 
in  one  of  those  Councils.  If  so,  '  Hear  the  Church ;' 
the  judgment  of  single  Fathers  is  not  to  be  received, 
against  their  joint  sentences  and  acts  in  Councils :  it 
is  your  own  Law.  Now  where  is  the  argument  for  the 

1  [This,  however,  was  the  Council  in  Trullo;  see  above,  p.  230.] 

2  [i.  e.  Bp.  Morton,  Grand  Imposture,  chap.  viii.  sect.  8;  ed.  Lond. 

1628.] 

19 2 


292  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

Pope's  authority  from  the  Fathers  ?     They  are  not  to 
be  believed  against  Councils;  they  spake  their  sense 
in  this  very  point,  as  you  have  heard,  in  the  Councils ; 
and  in  all  the  Councils  rejected  and  condemned  it. 
Reason  v.          The  belief  of  these  eight  general  Councils  is  the 
Rome's      professed  faith  of  the  Roman  Church1.     Therefore, 
tkmof  *"  the  Roman  Church  hath  been  involved  and  entangled, 
at  least  ever  since  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  the  con- 
fusion and  contradiction  of  faith ;  and  that  in  points 
necessary  to  salvation. 

For  the  Roman  Church  holds  it  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, to  believe  all  the  eight  general  Councils,  as  the 
very  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  and  we  have  found 
all  these  Councils  have  one  way  or  other  declared 
plainly  against  the  Pope's  Supremacy ;  and  yet  the 
same  Church  holds  it  necessary  to  salvation  to  believe 
the  contrary,  by  the  Council  of  Trent ;  viz.  that  the 
Pope  is  supreme  Bishop  and  absolute  Monarch  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

Some  adversaries  would  deal  more  severely  with 
the  Church  of  Rome  upon  this  point,  and  charge  her 
with  heresy  in  this,  as  well  as  in  many  other  articles : 
for  there  is  a  repugnancy  in  the  Roman  faith,  that 
seems  to  infer  no  less  than  heresy,  in  one  way  or 
other.  He  that  believes  the  article  of  the  Pope's 
Supremacy,  denies,  in  effect,  the  first  eight  general 
Councils,  at  least  in  that  point ;  and  that  is  heresy. 
And  he  that  believes  the  Council  of  Trent,  believes 
the  article  of  the  Pope's  Supremacy  :  therefore,  he  that 
believes  the  Council  of  Trent  does  not  believe  the 
first  eight  general  Councils,  and  is  guilty  of  heresy. 
„  l  [See  Gratian,  Decret.,  Part  I.  Distinct,  xvi.  c.  viii.] 


CHAP.  XXI.]  UNIVERSAL   PASTOR.  293 

Again,  he  that  believes  that  the  Pope  is  not  su- 
preme, denies  the  Council  of  Trent  and  the  faith  of 
the  present  Church, — and  that  is  heresy  :  and  he  that 
believes  the  first  eight  general  Councils,  believes  that 
the  Pope  is  not  Supreme ;  therefore,  he  denies  the 
Council  of  Trent  and  the  faith  of  the  present  Church, 
and  is  an  heretic,  with  a  witness. 

It  is  well   if  the   argument   conclude   here,   and  infidelity, 
extend  not  its  consequences  to  the   charge   of  infi- 
delity, as  well   as   heresy,  upon  the  present  Roman 
Church ;  seeing  this  repugnancy  in  the  Roman  faith 
seems  to  destroy  it  altogether  :  for 

He  that  believes  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  in  the 
sense  of  the  modern  Church  of  Rome,  denies  the 
faith  of  the  ancient  Church  in  that  point ;  and  he 
that  believes  it  not,  denies  the  faith  of  the  present 
Church ;  and  the  present  Church  of  Rome,  that  pro- 
fesseth  both,  believes  neither.  These  contrary  faiths 
put  together,  like  two  contrary  salts,  mutually  destroy 
one  another.  He  that  believes  that,  doth  not  believe 
this ;  he  that  believes  this,  doth  not  believe  that. 
Therefore  he  that  professeth  to  believe  both,  doth 
plainly  profess  he  believes  neither. 

Load  not  others  with  the  crimes  of  heresy  and 
infidelity,  but  '  pull  the  beams  out  of  your  own  eye.' 

But  the  charere  falls  heavier  upon  the  head  of  the  Pope's 

Schism 

present  Roman  Church  :  for  not  only  heresy  and  infi-  and  Per- 
jury. 
delity,   but   schism,    and   the   foulest    that   ever   the 

Church  groaned  under,  and  such  as  the  greatest  wit 
can  hardly  distinguish  from  apostacy,  and  all  aggra- 
vated with  the  horrid  crime  of  direct  and  self-con- 
demning perjury,  fasten  themselves  to  his  Holiness's 
chair,  from  the  very  constitution  of  the  Papacy  itself. 


294  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  [CHAP.  XXI. 

For  the  Pope,  as  such,  professeth  to  believe  and 
sweareth  to  govern  the  Church  according  to  the 
Canons  of  the  first  eight  general  Councils ;  yet  openly 
claims  and  professedly  practiseth  a  power  condemned 
by  them  all. 

Thus  (quatenus  Pope)  he  stands  guilty  of  separa- 
tion from  the  ancient  Church ;  and,  as  head  of  a  new 
and  strange  Church,  draws  the  body  of  his  faction 
after  him  into  the  same  schism ;  in  flat  contradiction 
to  the  essential  profession,  both  of  the  ancient  and 
present  Church  of  Home,  and  to  that  solemn  oath,  by 
which  also  the  Pope,  as  Pope,  binds  himself  at  his 
inauguration  to  maintain  and  communicate  with. 

Hence,  not  only  usurpation,  innovations,  and 
tyranny,  are  the  fruits  of  his  pride,  ambition,  and 
perjury,  but  if  possible,  the  guilt  is  made  more  scarlet 
by  his  cruelty  to  souls,  intended  by  his  formal  curses 
of  excommunications,  against  all  that  own  not  his 
usurped  authority,  viz.  the  primitive  Churches,  the 
first  eight  general  Councils,  all  the  Fathers  of  the 
Latin  and  Greek  Churches  for  many  hundred  years, 
the  greater  part  of  the  present  Catholic  Church,  and 
even  the  apostles  of  Christ,  and  our  Lord  himself. 

THE    SUM    OF    THE    WHOLE    MATTER A  TOUCH  OF  ANOTHER 

TREATISE THE  MATERIAL  CAUSE  OF  SEPARATION. 

rpHE  sum  of  our  defence  is  this :  If  the  Pope  have 
-L  no  right  to  govern  the  Church  of  England,  as  our 
apostle  or  patriarch,  or  as  infallible  ;  if  his  supremacy 
over  us  was  never  grounded  in,  but  ever  renounced 
by,  our  laws  and  customs,  and  the  very  constitution 
of  the  kingdom ;  if  his  supremacy  be  neither  of  civil, 
ecclesiastical,  or  Divine  right;  if  it  be  disowned  by 


CHAP.  XXI.]  UNIVERSAL  PASTOR.  295 

the  Scriptures  and  Fathers,  and  condemned  by  the 
ancient  Councils,  the  essential  profession  of  the  pre- 
sent Roman  Church,  and  the  solemn  oaths  of  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  themselves : — if,  I  say,  all  be  cer- 
tainly so  as  hath  appeared,  what  reason  remains  for 
the  necessity  of  the  Church  of  England's  readmission 
of,  or  submission  to,  the  papal  authority,  usurped 
contrary  to  all  this  ?  Or  what  reason  is  left  to  charge 
us  with  Schism  for  rejecting-  it  ? 

But  it  remains  to  be  shown,  that  as  the  claim  of 
the  Pope's  authority  in  England  cannot  be  allowed, 
so  there  is  cause  enough  otherwise  of  our  denial  of 
obedience  actually  to  it,  from  reasons  inherent  in  the 
usurpation  itself,  and  the  nature  of  many  things  re- 
quired by  his  laws. 

This  is  the  second  branch  of  our  defence,  pro- 
posed at  first  to  be  the  subject  of  another  treatise. 

For  who  can  think  it  necessary  to  communicate 
with  error,  heresy,  schism,  infidelity,  and  apostacy ; 
to  conspire  in  damning  the  primitive  Church,  the 
ancient  Fathers,  general  Councils,  and  the  better  and 
greater  part  of  the  Christian  world  at  this  day  ?  or 
willingly  at  least,  to  return  to  the  infinite  super- 
stitions and  idolatries,  which  we  have  escaped,  and 
from  which  our  blessed  ancestors  (through  the  infinite 
mercy  and  providence  of  God)  wonderfully  delivered 
us? 

Yet  these  horrid  things  cannot  .be  avoided,  if  we 
shall  again  submit  ourselves,  and  enslave  our  nation 
to  the  pretended  powers  and  laws  of  Rome ; — from 
which,  Liber  a  nos,  Domine. 


THE   POSTSCRIPT. 

OBJECTIONS  TOUCHING  THE  FIRST   GENERAL 

COUNCILS,  AND  OUR  ARGUMENTS  FROM 

THEM,  ANSWERED    MORE   FULLY. 


SECTION   I. 

THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  COUNCILS  DRAWN  UP,  AND 

CONCLUSIVE  OF  THE  FATHERS,  AND  THE 

CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

IN  this  Treatise  I  have  considered  the  Canons  of  the 
ancient  Councils  two  ways,  as  evidence  and  law. 
As  evidence,  they  give  us  the  undoubted  sense  and 
faith,  both  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  of  single 
Fathers  in  those  times ;  and  nothing  can  be  said 
against  that.  As  law,  we  have  plainly  found  that 
none  of  them  confer  the  supremacy  pleaded  for,  but 
every  one  of  them  in  special  Canons  condemn  it. 

Now  this  latter  is  so  great  a  proof  of  the  former, 
that  it  admits  of  no  possible  reply ;  except  circum- 
stances, on  the  bye,  shall  be  set  in  opposition  and 
contradiction  to  the  plain  text  in  the  body  of  the 
law. 

And  if  neither  the  Church  nor  single  Fathers  had 
any  such  faith  of  the  Pope's  supremacy,  during  the 
first  General  Councils,  then  neither  did  they  believe 
it  from  the  beginning  :  for  if  it  had  been  the  faith  of 
the  Church  before,  the  Councils  would  not  have 
rejected  it ;  and  indeed  the  very  form  and  method  of 


POSTSCRIPT.  297 

proceeding  in  those  ancient  Councils  is  sufficient  evi- 
dence that  it  was  not. 

However,  why  is  it  not  shown  by  some  colour  of 
argument  at  least,  that  the  Church  did  believe  the 
Pope's  supremacy  before  the  time  of  those  Councils  ? 
Why  do  we  not  hear  of  some  one  single  Father  that 
declared  so  much  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  or 
rather  before  the  Canons  of  the  Apostles  ?  Or  why 
is  there  no  notice  taken  of  such  a  right,  or  so  much 
as  pretence  in  the  Pope,  either  by  those  Canons  or 
one  single  Father  before  that  time  ? 

Indeed  our  authors1  find  very  shrewd  evidence  of 
the  contrary. 

"  Why,"  saith  Casaubon2  "  was  Dionysius  so  utterly  Dionysius. 
silent,  as  to  the  universal  head  of  the  Church  reigning 
at  Rome,   if  at  that  time  there  had  been  any  such 
monarch    there  ?    especially,    seeing    he    professedly 
wrote  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  and  government." 

The  like  is  observable  in  Ignatius,  the  most  Ignatius, 
ancient  martyr  and  bishop  of  Antioch,  who  in  his 
Epistles  frequently  sets  forth  the  order  ecclesiastical 
and  dignity  of  Bishops  upon  sundry  occasions,  but 
never  mentions  the  monarchy  of  St  Peter  or  the 
Roman  Pope.  The  writing  to  the  Church  of  Trallis 
'  to  obey  Bishops  as  Apostles,'  instanceth  equally  in 
Timothy,  St  Paul's  scholar,  as  in  Anacletus,  successor 
to  St  Peter3. 

1  [The  facts  in  this  'Postscript'  are  mainly  derived  from  Bp. 
Morton's  *  Grand  Imposture  of  the  (now)  Church  of  Rome,'  chap, 
vii.  viii.] 

2  Exercitation.  xvi.  in  Baron,  ad  an.  34.  ccix. 

3  [This  passage  does  not  occur  in  the  genuine  Epistle  of  Igna- 
tius.    It  is  cited  at  length  in  Bishop  Morton's  '  Grand  Imposture,' 
p.  100;  ed.  Lond.  1628.] 


298  POSTSCRIPT. 

The  prudence  and  fidelity  of  these  two  prime 
Fathers  are  much  stained,  if  there  were  then  an  uni- 
versal Bishop  over  the  whole  Church  ;  that  professedly 
writing  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Order,  they  should  so 
neglect  him,  as  not  to  mention  obedience  due  to 

St.  Paul,  him  ; — and  indeed  of  St  Paul l  himself,  who  gives  us  an 
enumeration  of  the  primitive  ministry,  on  set  purpose, 
both  in  the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  kinds  of  it, 
viz.  '  some  apostles,  some  prophets,  some  evangelists, 
some  pastors  and  teachers,'  and  takes  no  notice  of 
the  universal  Bishop.  But  we  hence  conclude  rather 
there  was  no  such  thing. 

For  who  would  give  an  account  of  the  government 
of  a  city,  army,  or  kingdom ;  and  say  nothing  of  the 
mayor,  general,  or  prince  ?  This  surpasseth  the  fancy 
of  prejudice  itself. 

Irenes.  Irenaeus  is  too  ancient  for  the  infallible  chair,  and 

therefore  refers  us,  in  the  point  of  tradition,  as  well 
to  Polycarp  in  the  east,  as  to  Linus,  bishop  of  Rome, 
in  the  west2. 

Tcrtuiiian.  Tertullian  adviseth  to  consult  the  mother-churches 
immediately  founded  by  the  Apostles,  and  names 
Ephesus  and  Corinth3  as  well  as  Rome,  and  Poly- 
carpus  ordained  by  St  John,  as  well  as  Clemens 
by  Peter4.  Upon  which  their  own  Rhenanus  notes, 
that  '  Tertullian  doth  not  confine  the  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church  to  one  place5,'  for  which  freedom  of 
truth,  the  'Index  Expurgatorius'  corrected  him6, — but 
Tertullian  is  Tertullian  still. 

1  [Eph.  iv.  11.]  2  [Adv.  Haeres.]  Lib.  n.  c.  iii. 

3  De  Prsescrip.  Hseret.  [c.  xxxvi.]  4  [Ibid.  c.  xxxn.] 

5  [Beatus  Rhenanus,  Argument,  in  loc.  ed.  Basil.  1521.] 

6  [i.e.  Index  Expurgator.  Belgic.  p.  78.] 


POSTSCRIPT.  299 

These  things  cannot  consist,  either  with  their  own 
knowledge  of  an  universal  Bishop,  or  the  Church's 
at  that  time ;  therefore  the  Church  of  Egypt  held  the 
Catholic  faith  with  the  chief  priests,  naming  Anatolius 
of  Constantinople,  Basil  of  Antioch,  Juvenal  of  Jeru- 
salem, as  well  as  Leo,  Bishop  of  Home l.  And  '  it  is 
decreed  (saith  the  Church2  of  Carthage)  we  consult 
our  brethren,  Siricius  (Bishop  of  Rome)  and  Simpli- 
cianus '  (Bishop  of  Milan). 

Hence,  it  follows,  that  the  Church  and  the  Fathers 
before  the  Councils  had  no  knowledge  of  the  Pope's 
supremacy,  and  we  have  a  plain  answer  to  all  obscure 
passages  in  those  Fathers  to  the  contrary. 

Besides,  whatever  private  opinion  any  of  them 
might  seem  to  intimate  on  the  Pope's  behalf  before, 
it  is  certain  it  can  have  no  authority  against  the  sense 
and  sentences  of  General  Councils,  which  soon  after 
determined  against  him,  as  hath  appeared  in  every 
one  of  them,  in  so  express  and  indisputable  terms,  in 
the  very  body  of  the  Canons,  that  it  is  beyond  all 
possible  hopes  to  support  their  cause  from  any  cir- 
cumstantial argument  touching  those  Councils.  Yet 
these  also  shall  now  be  considered  in  their  order. 


SECTION   II. 

OBJECTIONS  TOUCHING  THE   COUNCIL  OF  NICE 
ANSWERED. 


LET  us  begin  with  the  Council  of  Nice,  consisting  First  Gene- 
of  three  hundred  and  eighteen  Bishops,  which  is 


1  Biuius,  inter  Epist.  Illustr.  Person.  Concil.  [Tom.  n.]  p.  147. 

2  Concil.  Carthag.  in.  can.  XLVIII.:   [Labbe,  Tom.  n.  1177,  c.] 


300  POSTSCRIPT. 

found  so  plain  in  two  special  Canons1 — the  one  for- 
bidding appeals,  and  the  other  limiting  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  provinces  according  to  custom — against 
the  papal  Supremacy,  that  one  would  think  nothing 
could  be  objected.  But  Bellarmine  will  say  some- 
thing that  was  never  said  before. 

He  saith2,  'the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  should  have 
those  provinces,  because  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was 
accustomed  to  permit  him  so  to  do.' 

We  have  given  full  answer  to  this  before,  but  a 
learned  Prelate3  of  ours  hath  rendered  it  so  senseless 
and  shameless  a  gloss,  in  so  many  and  evident  in- 
stances, that  I  cannot  forbear  to  give  the  sum  of  what 
he  hath  said,  that  it  may  further  appear  our  greatest 
adversaries  are  out  of  their  wits,  when  they  pretend  a 
fence  against  the  Canons. 

After  the  nonsense  of  it,  he  shews  its  impudence 
against  the  sunshine  light  of  story  and  grammar ; 
because  it  is  so  evident,  that  the  words  '  because  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  hath  the  same  custom/  are  words  of 
comparison  betwixt  Alexandria  and  Rome,  in  point 
of  ancient  privilege,  both  from  the  words  e-rreiSt]  Km 
and  three  editions,  now  entered  into  the  body  of  the 
Councils  by  their  own  Binius — wherein  the  words  are, 
'  because  the  Church  of  Rome  hath  the  like  custom.' 

'  Yet  this  were  modesty,  did  they  not  know,'  saith 
he4,  'that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  did  against  the 
will  of  the  Pope  advance  the  prerogative  of  Constan- 
tinople, upon  this  ground  of  custom.' 

1  [Sec  above,  pp.  220, 221.J        2  [Do  Rom.  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  xiii.  j 

3  Bp.  Morton, '  Grand  Imposture,'  pp.  130,  et  seqq.  [Loiul.  1628.] 

4  [p.  132.] 


POSTSCRIPT.  301 

The  matter  is  so  plain,  that  their  own  Cardinal 
Cusanus '  concludes  thus :  "  We  see  how  much  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  by  use  and  custom  of  subjectional 
obedience,  hath  got  at  this  day  beyond  the  ancient 
constitutions ;"  speaking  of  this  very  Council. 

Bellarmine  saith2,  'the  beginning  of  that  Canon  Objec- 
tion n. 

in  the  vulgar  books  is  thus,  Ecclesia  Romano,  semper 
liabet  primatum,  mos  autem  perduret.' 

The  answer  is :  it  is  shameful  to  prefer  one  vulgar  Answer. 
book  before  all  other  Greek  or  Latin  copies,  and 
before  the  book  of  the  Pope's  Decrees,  not  in  the 
Canons  set  out  at  Paris,  A.D.  1559,  nor  the  editions 
sent  by  two  Patriarchs,  on  purpose  to  give  satisfaction 
in  this  cause, — which  Bellarmine  himself  acknowledg- 
eth3.  In  none  of  all  which  the  word  '  Primacy'  is  to 
be  found,  and  consequently  is  foisted  into  that  vulgar 
book.  But  what  if  it  were  ?  The  bare  Primacy  is 
not  disputed  in  the  sense  given  of  it  by  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon4.  '  It  behoves  that  the  Archbishop  of  Con- 
stantinople (new  Rome)  be  dignified  by  the  same  Pri- 
macy of  honour  after  Rome.' 


SECTION    III. 

SECOND   GENERAL  COUNCIL— OBJECTIONS   TOUCHING 
THE  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE  ANSWERED. 


N 


EXT  to  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  being  the  Second  Gc- 
second  General,  let  us  hear  what  is  objected.        ™fi*a 


1  De  Concordant.  Cathol.  Lib.  n.  c.  xii. 

2  [De  Romano  Pontifice,  Lib.  n.  c.  xiii.] 

3  [Ibid.  The  whole  of  this  answer  is  from  Bp.  Morton,  as  above, 
p.  134.]  4  [Quoted  above,  p.  35.] 


302  POSTSCRIPT. 

<  They  say  themselves/  saith  Bellarmine,  '  that  they 
were  gathered  by  the  mandate  of  Pope  Damasus  V 

(1)  What  then?     Suppose   we   should   give   the 
Pope,  as  the  head  of  unity  and  order,  the  honour  of 
convening  general  Councils,  and  of  sitting  as  Presi- 
dent in   them, — what  is  this    to  the  Supremacy    of 
government  ?  or  what  more  than  might  be  contained 
in  the  Primacy,  that  is  not  now  disputed? 

(2)  But  Bellarmine  himself  confesseth2,  that  those 
words  are  not  in  the  Epistle  of  the  Council,  as  all 
mandates  used  to  be,  but  of  certain  Bishops  that  had 
been  at  the  Council. 

(3)  It  is  recorded3,  that  the  mandate  from  the 
Emperor  gathered  them  together :  the  testimony  will 
have  credit  before  the  Cardinal. 

(4)  Indeed  the  Pope  sent  letters,  in  order  to  the 
calling  this  Council,  but  far  from  mandatory ;  neither 
were  they  sent  to  the  Eastern  Bishops,  to  require,  but 
to  the  Emperor  Theodosius4  by  way  of  request,  for 
the  obtaining  liberty  to  assemble  a  Synod.     Did  he 
command  the   Emperor  ?     Why  did   not  Pope   Leo 
afterwards  command  a  general  Council  in  Italy  nearer 
home,  when  he  had  intreated  Theodosius  for  it  with 
much  importunity,  and  could  not  obtain5?     The  time 

1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  xiii.] 

2  [Recognitiones,  prefixed  to  his  'Disputations,'  p.  5.  c;   ed. 
Colon.  1628.] 

3  [See  Bp.  Morton,  as  above,    chap.  vm.    sect.   3.     Natalis 
Alexander  (according  to  Palmer's  '  Treatise  on  the  Church,'  Partiv. 
chap.  ix.  sect.  2.)  proves  that  this  council  was  assembled  without 
consulting  Damasus  ] 

4  Vid.  Theodor.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  v.  c.  ix. 

5  [Epist.  Decretal,   xxiv. ;    Opp.  p.  114,  col.  2,  n:    ed.  Paris. 
1037.] 


POSTSCRIPT.  303 

was   not   ripe   for   the    Pope's    commands,   either   of 
Emperors  or  Synods. 

It  is  also  said,  that  '  the  Council   acknowledged  Objec- 
tion ii. 

that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  the  head,  and  they  the 
members,  in  their  very  first  Epistle  to  Pope  Damasus.' 

(1)  Bellarmine   confesseth,   this   is   not   in   their  Answers. 
Epistle,  but  the  Epistles  of  the  Bishops,  as  before. 

(2)  If  they  had  thus  complimented  the  Pope,  it 
could  not  be  interpreted  beyond  the  head  of  a  Pri- 
mate, and  their  union  with  him  in  the  same  faith.     It 
is  evident  enough  they  intended  nothing  less  than  a 
supremacy  of  power  in  that  head,    or  subjection  of 
obedience  in  themselves  as  members. 

(3)  This  is  evident  in  the  very  inscription  of  the 
Epistle,  which  was  not  to  Damasus  only,  but  jointly  to 
others ;    thus l,  '  Most  honourable  and  reverend  bre- 
thren   and    colleagues.'      And    the    Epistle    itself  is 
answerable  :  '  We  declare  ourselves  to  be  your  proper 
members';    but  how?    'That  you  reigning,  we  may 
reign  with  you.' 

(4)  The   sum    is,   there   were   at  this   time   two 
Councils,  convened  by  the  same  Emperor  Theodosius 
both  to  one  purpose,  this  at  Constantinople,  the  other 
at  Rome.     That  at  Rome  was  but  a  particular,  the 
other  at  Constantinople  was  ever  esteemed  a  general 
Council.     Who  now  can  imagine  that  the  general  was 
subject  to  the  particular,  and  in  that  sense,  members  ? 
No,  the  particular  Church  of  Rome  then  was  not  the      , 
Catholic;  they  humbly  express  their  communion,  'We 
are  all  Christ's,  who  is  not  divided  by  us ;  by  whose 
grace  we  will  preserve  entire  the  body  of  the  Church.' 

i  [Vid.  Concil.  ed  Lahh.  Tom.  n.  959.] 


304  POSTSCRIPT. 

They  did  avy^aipeiv  (as  their  word  was)  their  fellow- 
members,  which  they  styled  crvXXetTovpyoi,  'their  fel- 
low-workers.' 

'This  second  Canon  against  the  Pope  was  never 
received  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  because  furtive 
relatus1.' 

This  is  beyond  all  colour;  for  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
opposed  it  as  unfit,  yet  never  said  it  was  forged.  Leo, 
Gelasius,  Gregory,  all  took  it  very  ill,  but  no  one  said 
it  was  false.  The  Pope's  Legates  also  in  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  made  mention  of  this  Canon  by  way  of  oppo- 
sition, but  yet  never  offered  at  its  being  surreptitious. 
But  that  which  is  instar  omnium  in  this  evidence  is 
this ;  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  in 
their  letters  to  Pope  Leo,  say2  that  'with  mutual 
consent  they  confirmed  the  Canon  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  Bishops  at  Constantinople,'  notwithstanding 
that  his  Bishops  and  Legates  did  dissent  therefrom. — 
Now  what  if  a  few  histories  do  not  mention  this 
Canon  (which  is  all  that  remains  to  be  said)  ?  So- 
crates3 and  Sozomen4  do ;  and  two  positive  witnesses 
are  better  than  twenty  negative.  Besides,  though  it 
is  much  against  the  hair  of  Rome,  yet  it  is  so  evident, 
that  Gratian5  himself  reports  that  Canon  verbatim,  as 
acted  in  that  Council. 

1  [This  is  the  objection  of  Binius  from  Baronius.   Vid.  Concil. 
ed.  Labb.  Tom.  n.  971,  D.] 

2  [Vid.  Labbe,  Tom.  iv.  795,  E  ;  and  for  a  fuller  reply  to  the 
objection,  Bp.  Morton's  'Grand  Imposture,'  chap.  vni.  sect.  3.] 

3  [Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  v.  c.  viii.] 

4  [Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  vn.  c.  ix.] 

5  [Decret.  Part  i.  Distinct,  xxu.  c.  ii.  iii.] 


POSTSCRIPT.  305 

SECTION    IV. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  THIRD  GENERAL  COUNCIL 
AT  EPHESUS  ANSWERED. 

IT  is  said  by  Bellarmine1,  '  that  they  confessed  they  Objection 
deposed   Nestorius,    by    the   command   of  Pope 
Coelestine.' 

We  answer,  that  command  should  appear  in  the  Answers. 
Pope's  letters  to  them,  but  it  doth  not ;  the  style  of 
command  was  not  then  in  use,  for  almost  200  years 
after  Pope  Gregory  abhors  it2. 

(2)  The  words  intended  are  these3:  Turn  Eccle- 
sice  canonibus,  turn  epistola  patris  Ccelestini  et  colleger 
twstri  compulsi.  They  were  compelled  both  by  the 
Canons  and  by  his  letters ;  therefore  they  did  it  by 
the  Pope's  command, — an  excellent  consequence  from 
the  part  to  the  whole.  Indeed  they  first  shew,  that 
they  were  satisfied  both  by  his  words  and  letters  that 
he  had  deserved  deposition ;  and  then  acknowledge 
they  ought  by  the  Canons,  and  no  doubt  would  have 
deposed  him,  as  well  as  John  of  Antioch  shortly  after, 
without  the  Pope's  authority ;  though  they  gave  this 
compliment  to  Coelestine,  for  his  seasonable  advice, 
grounded  upon  the  Canons  and  merits  of  the  cause. 

But   'the    Council,'    say  they4,    'durst  not  judge  Objection 
John  Bishop  of  Antioch ;'    and   that   '  they   reserved 
him  to  the  judgment  of  Pope  Ccelestine.' 

1  [De  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  xiii.] 

2  Epist.  Lib.  vn.   [Indict,  i.],  Ep.  xxx. 

3  [Aj/tryKtu'tos  KaT€nfi\6fVT(s  cmo  rt  ro>v  K.UVWU>V,  <a\  «c  rfjs  firurro- 
A;;ir  TOV  ayKararov  narpbs  r)i/L<av  KOI  (rv\\fiTovpyov  KfAeorii/ou  TOV  firtcrKO- 
TTOV  -rf)s  "Pco/ieu'wi/  (KisXijaiaf,  K.  r.  X.     Evagr.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  i.  c.  iv.] 

4  [Iii  Bp.  Morton's  '  Grand  Imposture,'  chap.  vnr.  sect.  4.] 

20 


806  POSTSCRIPT. 

Answer.  Strange !  Bellarmine  hence  (1)  denies  matter  of 

fact,  mentioned  in  the  very  same  paragraph.  They 
•'  durst  not  depose  this  Patriarch/  when  they  tell  the 
Pope  in  terminis  they  had  done  it l :  Se  ilium  prius 
excommunicdsse  et  omni  potestate  sacerdotali  exuisse, 
What  is  this  but  deposition  ?  (2)  He  hence  concludes 
a  wonderful  right,  that  the  Pope  is  absolutely  above  a 
general  Council ; — a  conclusion2  denied  by  their  own 
general  Councils  of  Constance  and  Basle,  ever  dis- 
claimed by  the  Doctors  of  Paris  as  contrary  to  anti- 
quity, and  which  no  Council  since  the  beginning  of 
Christianity  did  expressly  decree,  as  Dr  Stapleton 
himself  confesseth ;  and  therefore  flies  to  silence  as 
consent :  Quamvis  nullo  decreto  publico,  tamen  tacito 
doctorum  consensu  definiti3,  etc. 

But  all  this  is  evidently  against  both  the  sense  of 
the  Council  declared  in  this  point,  and  the  reason  of 
the  Canon  itself. 

(1)  They  sufficiently  declared  their  sense  in  the 
very  Epistle  alleged,  where,  speaking  of  the  points 
constituted  by  the  Pope,  "We"  (say  they4)  "have 
judged  them  to  stand  firm  ;  wherefore  we  agree  with 
you  in  one  sentence,  and  do  hold  them  (meaning 
Pelagius  and  others)  to  be  deposed." — So  that  instead 
of  the  Pope's  confirming  acts  of  Councils,  this  Council 
confirms  the  acts  of  the  Pope,  whom  indeed  they 
plainly  call  their  '  colleague  and  fellow- worker5.' 

*  [. . .  T6<ay  avrovs  aKOiva>vr)Tovs  Troiij&avres  KOI  irepieXovres  avrtav 
TTCKTOV  ft-ovo-iav  lepariKfiv,  K.  r.  X.  Apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  in. 
665,  B.] 

2  [See  above,  pp.  233,  234.] 

8  De  Doctrin.  Princip.  Lib.  xin.  c.  15. 

4  [Apud  Labb.  ubi  supra,  665,  E.] 


POSTSCRIPT.  307 

(2)  In  the  Acts  or  Canons — their  reason  and  very 
words1  pstablishing  the  Cyprian  privilege,  (as  hath 
been  shewn) — they  bound  and  determine  the  power 
of  Rome,  as  well  as  other  Patriarchates  ;  and  certainly 
they  therefore  never  intended  to  acknowledge  the 
absolute  Monarchy  of  the  Pope  over  themselves,  by 
reserving  John  of  Antioch  to  Coelestine,  after  they  had 
deposed  him ;  they  declare  their  own  end  plainly 
enough,  Ut  illius  temeritatem  animi  Imitate  vinceremus, 
that  is,  as  you  have  it  in  Biniusa,  Coelestine  might  try 
whether  by  any  reason  he  could  bring  him  to  a  better 
mind,  that  so  he  might  be  received  into  favour  again.' 


SECTION  V. 

OBJECTIONS  TOUCHING  THE  FOURTH,  FIFTH,  SIXTH, 
SEVENTH,  EIGHTH  GENERAL  COUNCILS;  ESPECI- 
ALLY TOUCHING  THE  FOURTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL 
OF  CHALCEDON,  ANSWERED— CONCLUSION. 

THIS  Council  styled  the  Pope3  '  (Ecumenical  Patri-  Objection 
arch,'  or  Universal  Bishop. 

(1)     The  title  was  not  given  by  the  Council  itself,  Answers. 
but  by  two  deacons  writing  to  the  Council,  and  by 
Paschasinus,  the  Pope's  legate  in  the  Council4. 

1  [The  decree  may  be  seen  in  Labbe,  Tom.  m.  802.] 

2  Tom.  i.  p.  806. 

3  [Bellarmin.  de  Romano  Pontifice,  Lib.  n.  c.  xiii.    His  assertion 
is  that  this  title  occurs  in  Act.  i.  n.  in.  passim,  which  is  very  far 
from  the  truth.] 

4  [Apud  Labb.   Concil.  Tom.  iv.  94,  c;  448,  c.      See  also  Bp. 
Morton's  'Grand  Imposture,'  chap.  xm.  sect.  1.] 

20 — 2 


308  POSTSCRIPT. 

(2)  Though   the    Council   did   not   question   the 
form  of  the  title,   yet  no   one   can   think  that  they 
either  intended  to  grant  or  acknowledge  the  Pope's 
universal   authority  by   such   their   silence :  for  it  is 
incredible  that  the  same  Council,  which  gave  equal 
privileges  to  Constantinople1,  should  give  or  acknow- 
ledge  an   universal  jurisdiction    to    Rome    over   the 
whole  Church. 

(3)  But  the  words  answer  themselves,  Universali 
Archiepiscopo   magnce   Romce,    'Universal  Archbishop' 
(not  of  the  whole  Church,  but)  '  of  great  Rome ;  '- 
which  grand  restriction  denies  that  universal  power, 
which  they  would  argue  from  it.     The  style  of  the 
Roman  Emperor  is  '  universal  Emperor  of  Rome,'  and 
thus   is   distinguished  from  the  Emperor  of  Turkey 
and  all  others ;  and  denieth  him  to  be  the  Emperor 
of  the  whole  world. 

Saith  Binius2,  '  The  title  at  first  was  the  Bishop  of 
the  Universal  Church,  because  it  is  so  read  in  the 
Epistle  of  Leo,  but  was  altered  by  some  Greek  scribe 
in  envy  to  the  Church  of  Rome.' 

It  is  likely  that  a  private  man  could  or  durst  alter 
the  style  of  a  general  Council,  against  the  dignity  of 
the  Pope,  his  legate  present ;  but  it  is  more  likely 
that  some  Latin  scribe  hath  added  that  inscription  to 
the  Epistle  of  Pope  Leo,  in  honour  of  the  Church  of 
Rome ;  as  is  confessed  by  Cusanus  to  have  been  done 
to  the  Epistle  of  Anacletus s,  and  by  Baronius  to  have 

1  [See  above,  p.  6G.] 

2  Annot.  in  Concil.  Chalcedon.  Act.  m.  ex  Baronio. 

3  [This  and  the  following  facts  are  given  on  the  authority  of 
Bp.  Morton,  'Grand  Imposture,'  pp.  93,  94.     Compare   Comber's 


POSTSCRIPT.  309 

been  done  to  the  Epistle  of  Pope  Boniface,  and  by 
three  other  Popes  themselves  unto  the  Council  of 
Nice,  viz.  Zosimus,  Boniface,  and  Coelestinus.  And 
the  rather,  because,  as  was  just  now  noted,  this  Coun- 
cil at  the  same  time  honoured  the  Bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople with  equal  privileges  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

'  Pope  Leo  opposed  this  decree  of  the  Council,  Objection 
and  disclaimed  it1.' 

No  wonder ;  but  it  seems  general  Councils  were  Answer. 
not  always  of  the  Pope's  mind  ;  and  the  Pope  would 
then  have  had  a  greater  privilege  than  a  general 
Council ;  and  if  that  was  a  general  Council  (as  they 
themselves  say  it  was)  the  controversy  is  ended :  for 
by  their  own  confession,  this  general  Council  made  a 
decree  against  the  Pope's  pretences  of  superiority, 
and  therefore  it  did  not  intend,  by  the  title  of  Bishop 
of  the  whole  Church,  to  acknowledge  that  superiority 
which  he  pretended,  and  that  Council  of  four  hundred 
Bishops  denied  him. 

'  This  decree  was  not  lawfully  proceeded  in,  be-  Objection 

IV. 

cause  the  legates  of  the  Pope  were  absent2.' 

The  legates  were  there  the  next  day,  and  ex-  Answer. 
cepted,  and  moved  to  have  the  acts  of  the  day  before 
read.  Aetius  for  the  Council  sheweth  that  the  legates 
knew  what  was  done ;  '  all  was  done  canonically.' 
Then  the  acts  being  read,  the  Pope's  legates  tell  the 
Council,  that  circumvention  was  used  in  making  that 
Canon  of  privileges,  and  that  the  Bishops  were  com- 

'  Roman  Forgeries,'  Part  I.  pp.  12,  13;  Part  m.  pp.  248,  249;  Part 
in.  pp.  35,  et  scqq.] 

1  [Bullarmin.  do  Romauo  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  xviii.] 

2  Bellarm.  do  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  11.  c.  xxii. 


310  POSTSCRIPT. 

pelled  thereunto.  The  Synod  with  a  loud  voice  cried 
jointly,  '  We  were  not  compelled  to  subscribe.'  After 
every  one  severally  protest,  '  I  did  subscribe  willingly 
and  freely ; '  and  the  acts  are  ratified  and  declared  to 
be  just  and  valid;  'And  wherein'  (say  they)  'we  will 
persist.'  The  legates  are  instant  to  have  the  act 
revoked,  because  the  apostolical  See  is  humbled  or 
abased ;  thereto  the  Fathers  unanimously  answered, 
'  The  whole  Synod  doth  approve  it.'  This  clear  ac- 
count we  have  in  Binius,  in  Condi.  Chalced.  Act.  xvi.1 

Bellarmine  saith,  that  the  Pope  approved a  all  the 
decrees  of  this  Council,  which  Avere  de  fide :  and  doth 
not  Bellarmine  argue  that  the  Pope's  superiority  is 
jure  Divino  ?  and  the  present  Church  of  Rome  hold 
that  his  Supremacy  is  a  point  necessary  to  salvation  ? 
How  comes  it  to  pass  that  he  would  not  approve  this 
decree  ?  Or  how  can  they  esteem  this  Council  gene- 
ral and  lawful,  and  swear  to  observe  the  decrees  of  it. 
when  it  is  found  guilty  of  heresy  in  so  great  a  point 
as  the  Pope's  Primacy  ? 

But  to  end  with  this,  the  very  title  itself  of  '  Bishop 
of  the  Universal  Church,'  in  the  style  of  those  ages, 
signified  certainly  neither  Supremacy  nor  Primacy  : 
'Universal  Bishop  of  the  Church'  seemed  a  dangerous 
title,  importing  universal  power  over  it,  and  was  there- 
fore so  much  abhorred  by  Pope  Gregory.  But  the 
title  of  'Bishop  of  the  Universal  Church'  signifieth  the 
care  of  the  whole  Church,  to  which  (as  Origen3  saith) 

1  pp.  134,  137.     [Apud  Labb.  Tom.  iv.  795,  et  seqq.] 

2  [Ubi  supra: . .  ."se  Concilium  illud  approbasse,  solum  quantum 
ad  explicationem  fidei/'j 

3  [This  and  the  following  instances  are  taken  from  Bp.  Morton's 
'  Grand  Imposture,'  chap.  vi.  sect.  6.] 


POSTSCRIPT.  311 

'  every  Bishop  is  called.'  Therefore  Aurelius,  For- 
tunatianus,  Augustine,  are  called  '  Bishops  of  the  Uni- 
versal Church,'  and  many  in  the  Greek  Church  had 
the  same  honourable  titles  given  them l ;  which  signi- 
fied either  that  they  professed  the  Catholic  faith,  or, 
as  Bishops,  had  a  general  regard  to  the  good  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

But  your  own  Jesuit2  confesseth,  '  that  Pelagius 
and  Gregory,  both  Popes,  have  borne  witness  that  no 
Bishop  of  Rome  before  them  did  ever  use  the  style 
of  Universal  Bishops.'  However,  Universal  Patriarch 
makes  as  great  a  sound  as  Universal  Bishop ;  yet 
that  title  was  given  to  John  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
by  the  Bishops  of  Syria3. 

'  The  custody  of  the  Vine  (i.  e.  the  whole  Church)  Objection 

y^ 

the  Council  saith  is  committed  to  the  Pope  by  God4.' 

True,  so  that  primitive  Pope  Eleutherius  said  to  Answer- 
the  Bishops  in  France,  '  the  whole  Catholic  Church  is 
committed  to  you5.'  St  Paul  also  '  had  the  care  of  all 
the  Churches ; '  but  that  is  high  which  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen  saith  of  Athanasius,  '  that  he  having  the  presi- 
dence  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  may  be  said 
thereby  to  have  the  government  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian world6.' 

Now,  saith  a  learned  man,  "  we  are  compelled  to 
ask  with  what  conscience  you  could  make  such  objec- 

1  [See  above,  pp.  94—97.] 

2  Azorius,  [Instit.  Moral.  Part  n.  Lib.  n.  cap.  iv.] 

3  [In  a  synodal  Epistle,  apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  v.  162,  E.] 

4  [Bellarmin.  de  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  n.  c.  xiii.] 

5  [Quoted  above,  p.  288.] 

6  [Orat.  xxi.  p.  392,  c:  Opp.  Paris.  1619.] 


312  POSTSCRIPT. 

tions,  in  good  earnest,  to  busy  your  adversaries  and 
seduce  your  disciples  withal,  whereunto  you  your- 
selves could  so  easily  make  answer1." 

We  find  no  further  objection  against  the  other 
Councils  worthy  notice.  Bellarmine  argues  the  Pope's 
Supremacy,  because  the  Synod  of  Constantinople, 
being  the  fifth  general  Council,  complimented  the 
Pope  as  his  obedient  servants :  Nos  (inquit  Prceses] 
apostolicam  sedem  sequimur  et  obedimus2, — though  this 
very  Council  both  opposed,  accused,  and  condemned 
the  Pope  for  heresy;  which  could  not  possibly  consist 
with  their  acknowledgment  of  his  Supremacy  or  In- 
fallibility. 

The  same  is  more  evident  in  the  sixth,  seventh, 
and  eighth,  general  Councils,  condemning  the  persons 
and  judgments  of,  and  giving  laws  to,  the  Bishops  of 
Rome ;  to  which  nothing  material  can  be  objected, 
but  what  hath  been  more  than  answered. 

Binius  indeed,  in  his  Tract,  '  De  Primatu  Ecclesice 
Romance,'  gives  us  the  sayings  of  many  ancient  Popes 
for  the  Supremacy  pretended,  especially  in  two  points, 
the  power  of  appeals  (challenged  by  Pope  Anicetus, 
Zephyrinus,  Fabianus,  Sixtus,  and  Symmachus),  and 
exemption  of  the  first  See  from  censure  or  judgment 
by  any  other  power,  claimed  by  Pope  Sylvester  and 
Gelasius.  But  these  are  testimonies  of  Popes  them- 
selves in  their  own  cause,  and  besides  both  these 
points  have  been  found  so  directly  and  industriously 


1  Bp.  Morton,  ['Grand  Imposture,'  chap.  vin.  sect.  5.J 

2  Apud  Bellarm.  de  Romano  Pontif.  Lib.  II.  c.  xiii. 


POSTSCRIPT.  313 

determined  otherwise  by  their  own  general  Councils, 
that  further  answer  is  needless1. 


CONCLUSION. 

objections  being  removed,  the  argument 
-  from  the  Councils  settles  firm  in  its  full  strength  ; 
and  seeing  both  the  ancient  Fathers  and  the  Catholic 
Church  have  left  us  their  sense  in  the  said  Councils, 
and  the  sense  of  the  Councils  is  also  the  received  and 
professed  faith  of  the  present  Church  of  Rome  itself, 
who  can  deny  that  the  Catholic  Church  to  this  day 
hath  not  only  not  granted  or  acknowledged,  but  even 
most  plainly  condemned,  the  pretended  Supremacy  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  :  yea,  who  can  doubt  but  our 
argument  against  it  is  founded  upon  their  own  rock, 
the  very  constitution  of  the  Papacy  itself,  as  before 
hath  appeared  ? 

Therefore  the  Pope's  claim  upon  this  plea,  as  well 
as  upon  any  or  all  the  former,  is  found  groundless, 
and  England's  deliverance  from  his  foreign  jurisdic- 
tion just  and  honest  as  well  as  happy :  which  our  good 
God  in  His  wise  and  merciful  Providence  ever  con- 
tinue, preserve,  and  prosper  !  Amen,  Amen. 

1  [Especially  as  these  '  Decretal  Epistles'  were  for  the  most  part 
fabrications  of  later  times,  and  as  such  are  rejected  by  Romish 
historians;  e.g.  Floury.  They  formed  a  seasonable  basis  for  the 
pretensions  of  Gregory  VII.  and  Innocent  III.] 


[APPENDIX   A.] 


E  peculiar  position  of  English  Romanists  seemed  to  call 
for  a  fuller  illustration  than  could  have  been  conveniently 
bestowed  on  it  in  the  body  of  the  work.    Under  this  conviction  the 
Editor  purposes  in  the  following  observations,  first,  to  confirm  the 
Author's  assertion  at  p.  11,  and  secondly,  to  direct  the  thoughts 
of  the  younger   student  to   the  true  state   of  our   Anglo-Ro- 
manists.— On  looking  around  us,  we  find  a  body  of  men  pro- 
fessing respect  to  ecclesiastical  principles,  who  yet  keep   aloof 
from  the  worship  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  establish  for 
themselves  other  altars  and  provide  other  teachers.     Now  by  the 
canons  of  a  general  Council,  it  is  declared  highly  criminal  for 
persons,  even  '  where  the  confession  of  a  sound  faith  is  pretended, 
to  make  a  schism  and  gather  congregations  in  opposition  to  the 
canonical  bishops1.'    It  is  moreover  admitted  by  both  parties  in 
the  controversy  that  there  cannot  lawfully  be  two  bishops  in  pos- 
session of  the  same  diocese ;  that  if  one  be  in  canonical  posses- 
sion, the  other  is  guilty  of  irregularity  and  usurpation.  The  ques- 
tion, therefore,  to  be  decided  is  this :  Whether  of  the  two  rival 
communions  possesses  canonical  bishops, — whether  of  the  two  is 
chargeable  with  intrusion  and  schism  ?     At  present  we  may  neg- 
lect all  considerations  of  doctrine ;  for  besides  our  retention  of  the 
creeds,  always  professed  by  our  forefathers,  it  is  a  fact  well  ascer- 
tained that  the  bishop,  by  whose  interference  the  breach  was 
eventually  made,  had  himself  expressed  a  willingness  to  sanction 
the  Reformed  services8.   Accordingly  our  inquiry  may  be  pursued 

1  ['AipeTiicous  Se  Xeyo/uev,  TOUS  -re  -rrdXai  TT/S  CK/cXtjertas  diroKitpv\6eina^, 
Kai  TOIIS  yuera  -rav-ra  ii<j>'  i]fituv  ava6e/uaTt<r0ei'Tas'  TT/OOS  de  TOUTOIS  Kai  TOUS  TIJV 
TritrTiv  fiev  -TI]V  vyiij  irpotnroiovfuevov^  b/ioXoyeiv,  diroff  \iaavT  as  tie  Kai  dvri- 
ffvvdyovTas  TOIV  navoviKols  ijjuwi/  eTrio-KOTrots.     Concil.  Constant.  I.  A.D.  381, 
Can.  vi. ;  apud  Labb.  Concil.  Tom.  u.  950,  B.] 

2  [See  Sir  Roger  Twysden's  'Vindication,' pp.  198,  et  seqq.   It  is  true  that 
our  adversaries  in  more  prosperous  times  have  assumed  a  far  different  tone ; 
but  at  the  period  we  are  considering,  the  Trent  Creed  had  not  found  so  hearty 
a  reception,  nor  could  men  see  so  strongly  in  what  particulars  we  have  vio- 
lated the  Catholic  faith.  J 


APPENDIX.  315 

on  the  ordinary  principles  of  Church  discipline,  the  principles 
which  guided  the  early  Christians  in  determining  a  like  contro- 
versy.— With  them  it  was  a  first  step  to  investigate  the  orders  of 
the  two 'rival  communions,  to  trace  upwards  the  succession  of 
their  bishops  to  apostles  or  apostolical  men,  and  in  case  one  party 
could  not  prove  unbroken  descent  from  the  original  pastors  of  the 
district,  to  give  (cceteris  paribus)  a  verdict  to  their  adversaries. 
The  well-known  language  of  Irenagus  is  as  applicable  to  com- 
munion as  to  doctrine;  indeed  in  his  age  the  questions  were  made 
almost  identical.  "  Habemus  annumerare  qui  ab  apostolis  instituti 
sunt  episcopi  in  ecclesiis,  et  successores  eorum  usque  ad  nos  qui 
nihil  tale  docuerunt  neque  cognoverunt,  quale  ab  his  deliratur'." 
And  in  a  similar  spirit  writes  Tertullian :  "  Edant  ergo  origines 
ecclesiarum  suarum  ;  evolvant  ordinem  episcoporum  suorum,  ita 
per  successiones  ab  initio  decurrentem,  ut  primus  ille  episcopus 
aliquem  ex  apostolis  vel  apostolicis  viris,  qui  tamen  cum  apostolis 
perseveraverit,  habuerit  auctorem,  et  antecessoremV  Let  now 
this  test  of  apostolicity  be  applied  in  the  case  before  us.  The 
hierarchy  of  our  Church  is  in  actual  possession  of  the  English 
dioceses;  they  claim  to  be  successors  and  representatives  of  the 
episcopacy,  which  flourished  in  England  centuries  before  the  Re- 
formation ;  they  challenge  their  adversaries  to  point  out  one  single 
particular  by  which  their  orders  have  been  vitiated  or  their  jurisdic- 
tion forfeited.  The  Anglo-Romanists,  on  the  contrary,  have  no 
pretension  to  this  continuity :  when  they  first  gained  a  distinct  exist- 
ence in  England,  they  made  no  attempt  to  perpetuate  episcopacy, 
and  thus  tacitly  admitted  their  irregular  position.  Once,  indeed, 
Parsons  endeavoured  to  procure  bishops3,  A.D.  1580,  but  the 
effort  was  abortive;  and  Black  well  was  in  1598  nominated  as 
head  of  the  Eecusants  with  the  title  arch-priest4.  In  1623,  Dr. 
Bishop  came  over  to  institute  an  episcopal  government,  but  died 
in  the  following  year.  In  1625,  Dr.  Richard  Smith  (as  bishop  of 
Chalcedon)  was  appointed  to  preside  over  the  Anglo- Romanists ; 
but  in  1629  he  withdrew  into  France*.  In  1685,  the  first  vicar- 

1  [Adv.  Haeres.  Lib.  in.  cap.  3.J 

2  [De  Prasscriptione  Haeret.  c.  xxxii.J 

3  [See  Dodd's  Church  Hist.  Vol.  in.  p.  47  ;  Tierney's  note.] 

4  [Ibid.  pp.  47,  et  seqq.] 

5  [On  these  subjects,  see  'The  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 

Roman 


316  APPENDIX. 

apostolic  entered  England,  one  of  a  disconnected  band  who  are 
described  by  one  of  their  own  disciples  as  "mere  delegates, 
stewards  of  the  Roman  bishop,  amenable  to  his  will,  dependent 
on  his  beck1."  As  vicars-apostolic  they  have  no  English  jurisdic- 
tion; as  titular  bishops  in  partibus  infidelium,  they  have  no 
jurisdiction  any  where.  Hence  they  are  not  properly  bishops. — 
On  this  subject  let  us  hear  Dr.  Milner  (and  surely  the  Romanists 
can  ask  no  more  favourable  witness  than  the  author  of  '  The  End 
of  Controversy'}:  "In  my  first  letter,"  he  writes  to  Sir  John 
Throckmorton2,  "I  made  a  necessary  and  obvious  distinction 
between  a  perfect  and  an  imperfect  Church,  between  one  that  was 
actually  formed  and  another  that  was  only  in  a  state  of  formation, 
in  short,  between  an  establishment  and  a  mission.  I  shewed  that 
we  were  in  the  latter  of  these  predicaments,  having  entirely  lost 
the  succession  of  bishops  at  the  Reformation"  &c.  &c.  It  is  of 
course  easy  enough  to  assert  that  the  ipse-dixit  of  a  foreign  bishop 
can  give  regularity  to  anything  irregular,  and  can  stultify  the 
whole  practice  of  the  Church;  but  this  assertion  is  to  beg  the 
question  at  issue,  and,  after  the  arguments  of  the  preceding  Trea- 
tise, few  Englishmen,  we  may  hope,  will  grant  it. 

Thus  much  may  suffice  for  the  teachers  of  the  Anglo-Roman- 
ists :  let  us  next  consider  the  history  of  the  society  which  has 
placed  itself  under  their  guidance. — Whatever  be  the  character  of 
persons  who  have  come  into  this  country  with  foreign  orders, 
claiming  jurisdiction  in  dioceses  already  filled,  the  case  of  the 
Romanists,  as  a  body,  will  be  ecclesiastically  desperate,  if  we  find 
them  gaining  existence  by  voluntarily  dividing  the  Church  and 
abandoning  an  older  society  of  Christians  which  did  not  impose 
sinful  terms  of  communion.  That  these  terms  were  not  at  first 
considered  sinful  has  been  shewn  in  the  preceding  remarks ;  and 
the  same  truth  is  further  illustrated  by  the  conduct  of  the  Anglo- 
Romanists  themselves.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  the  Reforma- 
tion, as  to  matters  of  faith,  terminated  in  1562,  yet  till  1570  there 
was  in  no  quarter  any  visible  defection  from  the  worship  of  the 

Roman  Catholic  Religion  in  England,  translated  from  the  Italian  of  Gregorio 
Panzani,  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Berington'  (a  Romanist),  Lond.  1813;  pp.  98, 
108,  130.  The  title  of  this  book  is  most  significant.] 

1  [Apud  Berington,  p.  382.] 

2  [Ecclesiastical  Democracy  Detected,  p.  121 ;  Lond.  1793. J 


APPENDIX.  317 

English  Church ;  all  persons  assembled  at  the  parish  sanctuaries 
where  their  fathers  had  knelt  for  ages.  Some  few,  it  is  probable, 
took  exception  to  the  Prayer- Book,  on  the  ground  that  it  omitted 
topics  which  they  individually  cherished  :  yet  none  at  the  impulse 
of  his  private  spirit  proceeded  to  form  a  conventicle,  none  assumed 
an  attitude  of  hostility,  until  the  llth  year  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 
This  is  a  point  of  very  great  importance;  for  if  once  clearly 
established,  the  Recusants  are  convicted  of  voluntary  secession,  of 
disobedience  to  their  canonical  rulers,  of  '  bearing  arms  against  the 
Church,  and  resisting  the  appointment  of  God.' 

Historical  proofs  that  t/ie  Romanists  went  out 
from  among  us. 

ON  this  subject  we  shall  select  only  a  portion  of  the  evidence 
which  is  available.  "  For  divers  years,"  writes  Archbishop  Bram- 
hall,  "  in  the  beginning  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  there  was  no 
Recusant  known  in  England;  but  even  they,  who  were  most 
addicted  to  Roman  opinions,  yet  frequented  our  churches  and 
public  assemblies,  and  did  join  with  us  in  the  use  of  the  same 
prayers  and  Divine  offices,  without  any  scruple ;  until  they  were 
prohibited  by  a  papal  bull,  merely  for  the  interest  of  the  Roman 
court.  This  was  the  true  beginning  of  the  schism  between  us  and 
them.  I  never  yet  heard  any  of  that  party  charge  our  Liturgy 
with  any  error,  except  of  omission ;  that  it  wanted  something 
which  they  would  have  inserted1."  The  authority  for  the  main 
fact  here  stated  is  a  contemporary  pamphlet,  entitled  '  The  Dis- 
closing of  (he  Great  Bull,  that  roared  at  my  Lord  Bishop's 
Gatej  &c.,  published  at  London,  1569.  The  same  circumstances 
are  distinctly  narrated  by  Bishop  Andrewes,  in  the  Tortura  Torti, 
pp.  130 — 132,  p.  142,  ed.  Lond.  1609, — by  Camden,  Annales 
Elizabeth.  A.D.  1570,  p.  186,  ed.  Lugdun.  Batav.  1625,— by  Sir 
Humfrey  Lyude,  Via  Tuta,  sect.  iv.  Coke,  in  his  Charge  at 
Norwich,  A.D.  1607,  declared  that  at  first  'none  of  the  papists 
did  refuse  to  come  to  our  church,  and  yield  their  formal  obedience 
to  the  laws  established.  And  thus  they  continued,  not  any  one 
refusing  to  come  to  our  churches  during  the  first  ten  years  of  her 

'  [Just  Vindication,  Part  i.,  Disc,  ii ;  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  248;  ed.  Oxf. 
1842.) 


318  APPENDIX. 

Majesty's  government.  And  in  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  year 
of  her  reign,  Cornwallis,  Bedingfield,  and  Silyarde,  were  the  first 
Recusants,  they  absolutely  refusing  to  come  to  our  churches ;  and 
until  they  in  that  sort  began,  the  name  of  Recusant  was  never 
heard  of  amongst  us.'  In  addition  to  this  passage,  Mr.  Palmer 
(Treatise  on  the  Church,  Vol.  i.,  pp.  348,  349)  adduces  the  in- 
structions of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  Walsingham,  and  other  docu- 
mentary evidence,  establishing  the  same  position.  Similar  testi- 
mony is  borne  by  a  "  Relatione  del  presente  Stato  a"  Inghilterra, 
cavata  da  una  lettera  scritta  di  Londra ;"  in  Roma,  1590.  After 
referring  to  the  recent  fortunes  of  the  Romanists,  the  writer  goes 
on  to  tell  us,  "  Allora  tutti  andavano  communemente  alle  sina- 
goghe  degli  eretici  et  alle  prediche  loro  menandovi  li  figli  et 
famiglie,"  etc.  etc.  This  narrative  was  perused  by  Ranke,  who  gives 
an  extract  from  it  in  his  'History  of  the  Popes,'  Vol.  n.  p.  88, 
Engl.  Trans.  It  agrees  entirely  with  another  passage  in  Riba- 
deneira,  de  Schismate,  quoted  by  Hallam,  Constilut.  History, 
Vol.  i.  p.  118.  Further  proof,  if  necessary,  may  be  found  in 
Garnet1,  and  in  Parsons2,  although  the  latter  is  somewhat  loath 
to  make  the  admission.  As  late  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  as  the 
year  1578,  a  virulent  tract  was  written  by  Gregory  Martin, 
'  shewing  that  all  Catholics  ought  to  abstain  from  heretical  con- 
venticles :'  in  other  words,  witnessing  to  the  difficulty  with  which 
the  Romanizing  portion  of  the  Church  were  detached  from  its 
communion  and  worship. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  shall  not  scruple  to  conclude  with 
Barrow3,  that  "  the  Recusants  in  England  are  no  less  schismatics 
than  any  other  separatists.  They  are  indeed  somewhat  worse ; 
for  most  others  do  only  forbear  communion;  these  do  rudely 
condemn  the  Church  to  which  they  owe  obedience,  yea,  strive  to 
destroy  it :  they  are  the  most  desperate  rebels  against  it."] 

1  [See  State  Papers,  Vol.  i.  p.  249;  quoted  by  Mr.  Palmer,  ubi  supra.] 

2  [Answer  to  the  Fifth  Part  of  Coke's  Reports,  p.  371.] 

3  [Unity  of  the  Church;  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  783  ;  ed.  1716.] 


A   SERIOUS   ALARM 

TO  ALL   SORTS    OF  ENGLISH   MEN   AGAINST  POPERY, 

FROM  SENSE  AND  CONSCIENCE,  THEIR  OATHS 

AND   THEIR    INTEREST. 


1.  rPHE  Kings  of  England  seem  bound,  not  only  by 

J-  their  title,  but  in  conscience  of  their  ministry 
under  God,  to  defend  the  faith  and  the  Church  of 
Christ  within  their  dominions,  against  corruption  and 
invasion,  and  therefore  against  Popery. 

They  are  also  bound  in  honour,  interest,  and 
fidelity,  to  preserve  the  inheritance  and  rights  of  the 
Crown,  and  to  derive  them  entire  to  their  heirs  and 
successors ;  and  therefore  to  keep  out  the  Papal 
authority. 

And  lastly,  it  is  said  they  are  bound  by  their 
oaths  at  their  coronation,  and  by  the  laws  of  nature 
and  government,  to  maintain  the  liberties  and  cus- 
toms of  their  people,  and  to  govern  them  according 
to  the  laws  of  the  realm ;  and  consequently  not  to 
admit  the  foreign  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope,  in  pre- 
judice of  our  ancient  constitution,  our  common  and 
ecclesiastical  laws,  our  natural  and  legal  liberties  and 
properties. 

2.  The  nobility  of  England  have  anciently  held 
themselves  bound,  not  only  in  honour,  but  by  their 
oaths,  to  preserve,  together  with  the  King,  the  terri- 
tories and  honours  of  the  King  most  faithfully,  and  to 
defend  them  against  enemies  and  foreigners ;  mean- 


320  A  SERIOUS  ALARM 

ing  especially  the  Pope  of  Rome.  It  is  expressed 
more  fully  in  their  letter  to  the  Pope  himself,  in 
Edward  the  First's  reign,  to  defend  the  inheritance 
and  prerogative  of  the  Crown,  the  state  of  the  realm, 
the  liberties,  customs,  and  laws  of  their  progenitors, 
against  all  foreign  usurpation,  toto  posse,  totis  viribus, 
'  to  the  utmost  of  their  power,  and  with  all  their 
might ':  adding,  "  We  do  not  permit,  or  in  the 
least  will  permit,  sicut  nee  possumus  nee  debemus, 
though  our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  do,  or  in  the 
least  wise  attempt  to  do,  any  of  the  premises,  (viz. 
owning  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  by  his  answer 
touching  his  right  to  Scotland,)  so  strange,  so  unlaw- 
ful, prejudicial,  and  otherwise  unheard  of,  though  the 
King  would  himself1." 

See  that  famous  letter  sent  to  the  Pope,  the  29th 
of  Edward  I.,  taken  out  of  Corpus  Christi  College 
Library,  and  printed  this  year  at  Oxford,  the  reading 
of  which  gave  the  occasion  of  these  meditations. 

3.  It  appears  further,  in  the  sheet  where  you  have 
that  letter,  that  the  Commons  in  Parliament  have 
heretofore  held  themselves  bound  to  resist  the  inva- 
sion and  attempts  of  the  Pope  upon  England,  though 
the  King  and  the  Peers  should  connive  .at  them ;  their 
words  are  resolute  :  "  Si  Dominus  Rex  et  Regni  majores 
hoc  vellent  (meaning  Bishop  Ademer's  revocation  from 
banishment  upon  the  Pope's  order)  communitas  tamen 


1  ["  Nee  etiam  permittimus,  aut  aliquatenus  permittemus  sicut 
nee  possumus,  nee  debemus,  prsemissa  tarn  insolita,  indebita,  prseju- 
dicialia,  et  alias  inaudita,  prselibatum  dominum  nostrum  rogem, 
etiamsi  vellet  facere,  seu  quomodolibet  attemptare."  See  the  letter 
in  Rymer's  "Fcedcra,"  Vol.  i.  Pars  n.  p.  927,  ed.  Lond.  1816.] 


AGAINST  POPERY.  321 

ipsius  ingressum  in  Angliam  nullatenus  sustineret"  This 
is  said  to  be  recorded  about  the  44th  of  Henry  III. 

4.  It  is  there  observed  also,  that  upon  the  con- 
quest, William  the  Conqueror  made  all  the  freeholders 
of  England  to  become  sworn  brethren,  sworn  to  de- 
fend the  monarchy  with  their  persons  and  estates  to 
the  utmost  of  their  ability,  and  manfully  to  preserve 
it :  so  that  the  whole  body  of  the  people,  as  well  as  the 
Lords  and  Commons  assembled  in  Parliament,  stood 
anciently  bound  by  their  oath  to  defend  their  King 
and  their  country  against  invasion  and  usurpation. 

5.  The  present  constitution  of  this  kingdom  is 
yet  a  stronger  bulwark  against  Popery.     Heretofore 
indeed  the   papal   pretensions   were   checked,   some- 
times in  temporal,    sometimes   in   spiritual   concerns 
and  instances ;  but  upon  the  Reformation,  the  Pope's 
Supremacy  was  altogether  and  at  once  rejected,  and 
thrown  out  of  England ;  and  the  consequence  is,  an 
universal   standing   obligation   upon  the  whole  king- 
dom, by  statutes,  customs,  and  most  solemn  oaths,  to 
defend  our  monarchy,  our  Church,  our  country,  and 
our  posterity,  against  those  incroachments  and  that 
thraldom,  from  which  we  were  then  so  wonderfully 
delivered,  and  for  this  hundred  years  have  been  so 
miraculously  preserved, — blessed  be  God ! 

Accordingly  in  our  present  laws,  both  the  tem- 
poral and  ecclesiastical  Supremacy  is  declared  to  be 
inherent  in  the  Crown,  and  our  Kings  are  sworn  to 
maintain  and  govern  by  those  laws :  and  I  doubt  not 
but  all  ministers  of  the  Church,  and  all  ministers  of 
state,  and  of  law  and  war,  all  mayors  and  officers  in 
cities  and  towns  corporate,  &c.,  together  with  all  the 
21 


322  A  SERIOUS  ALARM 

sheriffs  and  other  officers  in  their  several  count  it-s  : 
and  even  all  that  have  received  either  trust  or  power 
from  his  Majesty  within  the  kingdom ; — all  these,  I 
say,  I  suppose  are  sworn  to  defend  the  King's  Supre- 
macy as  it  is  inconsistent  with,  and  in  flat  opposition 
to,  Popery. 

In  the  Oath  of  Allegiance,  we  swear  to  bear  true 
allegiance  to  the  King,  and  to  defend  him  against 
all  conspiracies  and  attempts  which  shall  be  made 
against  his  person  and  Crown,  to  the  utmost  of  our 
power  ;  meaning  especially  the  conspiracies  and  at- 
tempts of  Papists,  as  is  plain  by  that  which  follows  in 
that  oath,  and  yet  more  plain  by  the  Oath  of  Supremacy. 

In  which  oath  we  swear,  that  the  King  is  the  only 
supreme  governor  in  this  realm,  as  well  in  all  spiritual 
things  and  causes,  as  temporal ;  and  that  no  foreign 
prince  or  prelate  hath,  or  ought  to  have,  any  jurisdic- 
tion ecclesiastical  within  this  realm ;  and  that  we  do 
abhor  and  renounce  all  such.  We  swear  also,  that  we 
will  bear  faith  and  true  allegiance  to  the  King,  and 
to  our  power  assist  and  defend  all  jurisdictions,  viz. 
ecclesiastical  as  well  as  temporal,  granted  or  belong- 
ing to  the  King's  Highness. 

6.  Now  next  to  oaths,  nothing  can  be  thought  to 
oblige  us  more  than  interest.  But  if  neither  oaths 
nor  interest,  neither  conscience  nor  nature,  neither 
religion  nor  self-preservation,  can  provoke  us  to  our 
own  defence,  what  remains  but  a  certain  fearful  ex- 
pectation of  judgment  to  devour  a  perjured  and  sense- 
less generation  ? 

If  either  our  joint  or  several  interests  be  con- 
siderable, how  are  we  all  concerned  ? 


AGAINST  POPERY.  323 

(1)  Is  there  any  among  us  that  care  for  nothing 
but  liberty  and  money?     They  should  resist  Popery, 
which  would  many  ways  deprive  them  of  both. 

(2)  But  if  the   knowledge   of  the  truth,  if  the 
canon  of  life  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  if  our  prayers  in 
our  own  tongue,  if  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel,  the 
purity  of  worship  and  the   integrity   of  Sacraments, 
be  things  valuable  and  dear  to  Christians, — let  them 
abhor  Popery. 

(3)  If  the  ancient  privileges  of  the  British  Church, 
the   independency  of  her  government  upon   foreign 
jurisdiction  ;  if  their  legal  incumbencies,  their  eccle- 
siastical  dignities ;   if  their  opportunities   and   capa- 
cities  of  saving   souls    in   the   continuance   of   their 
ministries ;  if  their  judgment  of  discretion  touching 
their  doctrine  and  administrations ;  their  judgment  of 
faith,  reason,  and  sense,  touching  the  Eucharist;   if 
exemption  from  unreasonable  impositions  of  strange 
doctrines,  Romish  customs,  groundless  traditions,  and 
treasonable  oaths  ;  and  lastly,  if  freedom  from  spiritual 
tyranny  and  bloody  inquisitions, — if  all  these  be  of 
consequence  to  clergymen,  let  them  oppose  Popery. 

(4)  If   our  judges   and   their   several   courts  of 
judicature   would    preserve    their  legal    proceedings, 
and  judgments   and   decrees ;  if  they  would  not  be 
controlled   and   superseded   by  bulls,  sentences,  and 
decrees  from  the  Pope,  and  appeals  to  Rome, — let 
them  never  yield  to  Popery. 

(5)  If  the  famous  nobility  and  gentry  of  England 
would  appear  like  themselves  and  their  heroic  ances- 
tors, in  the  defence  of  the  rights  of  their  country,  the 
laws  and  customs  of  the  land,  the  wealth  of  the  peo- 

21 — 2 


324  A  SERIOUS  ALARM 

pie,  the  liberties  of  the  Church,  the  empire  of  Britain, 
and  the  grandeur  of  their  King,  or  indeed  their  own 
honour  and  estates  in  a  great  measure, — let  them 
never  endure  the  re-admission  of  Popery. 

(6)  Yea,  let  our  great  ministers  of  state,  and  of 
law,  and  of  war,  consider  that  they  stand  not  firm 
enough  in  their  high  and  envied  places,  if  the  Roman 
force  breaks  in  upon  us ;  and  remember  that  had  the 
late  bloody  and  barbarous  design  taken  effect1,  one 
consequence  of  it  was,  to  put  their  places  into  other 
hands ;  and  therefore  in  this  capacity,  as  well  as  many 
other,  they  have  no  reason  to  be  friends  to  Popery. 

(7)  As  for  his  most  excellent  Majesty,  no  suspi- 
cion either  of  inclination  to,  or  want  of  due  vigilance 
against,  Popery,  can  fasten  upon  him ;  and  may  he 
long  live  in  the  enjoyment  and  under  a  worthy  sense 
of  the  royalties  of  monarchy,  and  the   honour   and 
exercise  of  his  natural  and  legal  supremacy,  in  all 
causes  and  over  all  persons  within  his  dominions,  both 
civil  and   ecclesiastical — his   paternal   inheritance  of 
empire  ;  and  at  last  leave  it  entirely  to  his  heirs  and 
successors  upon  earth,  for  a  more  glorious  crown  in 
heaven.     And  in  the  mean  time,  may  he  defend  the 
faith  of  Christ,  his  own  prerogative,  the  rights,  pri- 
vileges, and  liberties,  and  estates  of  his  people,  and  the 
defensive  laws  and  customs  of  his  Eoyal  progenitors ; 
and  therefore  may  he  ever  manage  his  government, 
both  with  power,  care,  and  caution,  in  opposition  to 
the  force,  and  detection  and  destruction  of  the  hellish 
arts  and  traitorous  designs  and  attempts  of  Popery. 

1  [An  allusion  to  the  pretended  conspiracy  of  the  French,  &c. 
revealed  by  Titus  Gates,  A.D.  1678.] 


AGAINST  POPERY.  325 

(8)  I  conclude,  that  if  the  precious  things  already 
mentioned,  and  many  more,  be  in  evident  danger  with 
the  return  of  Popery,  let  us  again  consider  our  oaths 
as  well  as  our  interest,  and  that  we  have  the  bond  of 
God  upon  our  souls ;  and,  as  the  Conqueror's  words 
are,  we  are  jurati  fratres,  we  are  sworn  to  God,  our 
King  and  country,  to  preserve  and  defend  the  things 
so  endangered,  against  all  foreign  invasion  and  usurp- 
ation, i.  e.  against  Popery.  Accordingly,  may  our 
excellent  King,  and  his  councils  and  ministers ;  may 
the  Peers  of  the  realm  and  the  Commons  in  parlia- 
ment ;  may  the  nobility  and  gentry,  may  the  judges 
and  lawyers,  may  the  cities  and  the  country,  the 
Church  and  state,  and  all  ranks  and  degrees  of  men 
amongst  us ;  may  we  all,  under  a  just  sense,  both  of 
our  interest  and  our  oaths, — may  we  all  as  one  man, 
with  one  heart,  stand  up  resolved  by  all  means  pos- 
sible to  keep  out  Popery,  and  to  subvert  all  grounds 
of  fear  of  its  return  upon  England  for  ever.  Amen, 
Amen. 

O'vTO)  c€  /cat  ap^ovra  e/cxX^uias  e/cacrTfys  TroAecus 
aPXovri  T^v  €V  Tf?  iroXei  (TvyKpiTeov.  Origen.  contra 
Celsum,  Lib.  in.  [p.  129 ;  ed.  Cantab.  1658.] 

"  It  is  fit  that  the  governor  of  the  Church  of  each 
city  should  correspond  to  the  governor  of  those  which 
are  in  the  city." 

"  Prcesumi  malam  fidem  ex  antiquiore  adversarii 
possessione."" 

"  Ad  transmarina  Concilia  qui  putaverit  appellan- 
dum,  a  nullo  intra  Africam  in  communionem  recipiatur" 
Concil.  Milevitan.  [Can.  xxn. ;  apud  Labb.  Tom.  n., 
1542,  1543.] 


THE    OATHS 

OF 

ALLEGIANCE    AND    SUPREMACY. 


THE  OATH   OF   ALLEGIANCE. 

I  A.  B.,  do  truly  and  sincerely  acknowledge,  pro- 
fess, testify,  and  declare  in  my  conscience  before 
God  and  the  world,  that  our  Sovereign  Lord  King- 
Charles  is  lawful  and  rightful  King  of  this  realm,  and 
of  all  other  his  Majesty's  dominions  and  countries : 
and  that  the  Pope,  neither  of  himself,  nor  by  any 
authority  of  the  Church  or  See  of  Rome,  or  by  any 
other  means  with  any  other,  hath  any  power  or  autho- 
rity to  depose  the  King,  or  to  dispose  any  of  his 
Majesty's  kingdoms  or  dominions,  or  to  authorize  any 
foreign  prince  to  invade  or  annoy  him  or  his  coun- 
tries, or  to  discharge  any  of  his  subjects  of  their  alle- 
giance and  obedience  to  his  Majesty,  or  to  give  licence 
or  leave  to  any  of  them  to  bear  arms,  raise  tumults, 
or  to  offer  any  violence  or  hurt  to  his  Majesty's  royal 
person,  state  or  government,  or  to  any  of  his  Majesty's 
subjects  within  his  Majesty's  dominions. 

Also  I  do  swear  from  my  heart,  that  notwithstand- 
ing any  declaration  or  sentence  of  excommunication 
or  deprivation  made  or  granted,  or  to  be  made  or 
granted  by  the  Pope  or  his  successors,  or  by  any 
authority  derived  or  pretended  to  be  derived  from 
him  or  his  See,  against  the  said  King,  his  heirs  or 
successors,  or  any  absolution  of  the  said  subjects 


THE  OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE.  327 

from  their  obedience ;  I  will  bear  faith  and  true  alle- 
giance to  his  Majesty,  his  heirs  and  successors,  and 
him  and  them  will  defend  to  the  uttermost  of  my 
power,  against  all  conspiracies  and  attempts  what- 
soever, which  shall  be  made  against  his  or  their  per- 
sons, their  crown  and  dignity,  by  reason  or  colour  of 
any  such  sentence  or  declaration,  or  otherwise ;  and 
will  do  my  best  endeavour  to  disclose  and  make 
known  unto  his  Majesty,  his  heirs  and  successors,  all 
treasons  and  traitorous  conspiracies  which  I  shall 
know  or  hear  of,  to  be  against  him  or  any  of  them. 

And  I  do  further  swear,  that  I  do  from  my  heart 
abhor,  detest  and  abjure,  as  impious  and  heretical, 
this  damnable  doctrine  and  position,  that  princes 
which  be  excommunicated  or  deprived  by  the  Pope, 
may  be  deposed  or  murdered  by  their  subjects,  or 
any  other  whatsoever. 

And  I  do  believe,  and  in  conscience  am  resolved, 
that  neither  the  Pope,  nor  any  person  whatsoever, 
hath  power  to  absolve  me  of  this  oath,  or  any  part 
thereof,  which  I  acknowledge  by  good  and  full  autho- 
rity to  be  lawfully  administered  unto  me,  and  do 
renounce  all  pardons  and  dispensations  to  the  con- 
trary. And  all  these  things  I  do  plainly  and  sincerely 
acknowledge,  and  swear  according  to  these  express 
words  by  me  spoken,  and  according  to  the  plain  and 
common  sense  and  understanding  of  the  same  words, 
without  any  equivocation  or  mental  evasion,  or  secret 
reservation  whatsoever.  And  I  do  make  this  recog- 
nition and  acknowledgment  heartily,  willingly,  and 
truly,  upon  the  true  faith  of  a  Christian.  So  help  me 
God,  &c. 


328 


THE   OATH   OF  SUPREMACY. 

I  A.  B.,  do  utterly  testify  and  declare  in  my  con- 
science, that  the  King's  Highness  is  the  only 
supreme  governor  of  this  realm,  and  of  all  other  his 
Highness's  dominions  and  countries,  as  well  in  all 
spiritual  or  ecclesiastical  things  or  causes,  as  tem- 
poral :  and  that  no  foreign  prince,  person,  prelate, 
state,  or  potentate,  hath,  or  ought  to  have,  any  juris- 
diction, power,  superiority,  pre-eminence  or  authority, 
ecclesiastical  or  spiritual  within  this  realm :  and  there- 
fore I  do  utterly  renounce  and  forsake  all  foreign 
jurisdictions,  powers,  superiorities,  and  authorities, 
and  do  promise  from  henceforth  I  shall  bear  faith 
and  true  allegiance  to  the  King's  Highness,  his  heirs 
and  lawful  successors,  and  to  my  power  shall  assist 
and  defend  all  jurisdictions,  privileges,  pre-eminences, 
and  authorities  granted  or  belonging  to  the  King's 
Highness,  his  heirs  and  successors,  or  united  and 
annexed  to  the  imperial  Crown  of  this  realm.  So 
help  me  God,  and  by  the  contents  of  this  book. 


A.  C.  (i.e.  Fisher  against  Archbp. 
Laud),  87,  100. 

ACACIUS  (patriarch  of  Constantino- 
ple), 92,  287. 

ADRIAN  VI.  (bishop  of  Rome),  235. 

AFRICAN  CHURCH,  canons  of,  con- 
trary to  the  papal  supremacy, 
235—237. 

AGATHO  (bishop  of  Rome)  calls  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul  K0pv<paloi,  78 ; 
his  submission  to  the  emperor, 
102. 

ALEXANDER  II.  (King  of  Scotland) 
repulses  the  papal  legate,  59. 

ALFRED  (King  of  Northumberland), 
his  conduct  respecting  Wilfrid,  57. 

ANTIOCH,  Council  of,  (see  Council). 

APOSTLES,  equality  of,  257,  259. 

APPEALS,  none  from  a  patriarch  or 
primate,  60,  105 ;  proceedings  at 
Sardica  concerning,  63 ;  constitu- 
tions of  Clarendon  respecting,  65 ; 
prohibited  alike  to  bishops  and 

inferior  clergy,  105 — 107 ; to 

Rome,  how  forbidden  by  Henry 
VIII.,  122 ;  senses  of  the  word 
'  appeal,'  124 ;  case  of  Wilfrid,  56, 
57;  of  Anselm,  125 — 127;  when 
first  permitted,  125 ;  complaint  of 
Paschalis  I.  respecting,  129;  again 
forbidden,  130 ;  clause  in  Magna 
Charta  respecting,  132 ;  complaint 
of  the  kingdom,  132  ;  premuniri', 
penalty  of,  133,  140;  interrupted 
continually,  134. 


AUGUSTINE,  St.  (of  Hippo),  judgment 
of  the  pope's  power,  76,  77,  105. 

AUGUSTINE  (of  Canterbury),  his  en- 
tertainment in  England,  45, 46 ;  his 
alleged  connexion  with  the  Bangor 
massacre,  46 ;  the  pall  granted  to, 
54 ;  was  placed  in  Canterbury  by 
the  king,  115, 116. 

AuToice>aXoi  (independent  primates), 
36. 

BARNES  (Father),  his  opinion  re- 
specting the  Britannic  Church, 
182. 

BARONIUS,  on  the  pope's  confirma- 
tion of  elections,  72,  73,  76. 

BASLE,  Council  of,  (see  Council). 

BEAUFORT,  HENRY,  (bishop  of  Win- 
chester), proceedings  respecting, 
133,  140. 

BONIFACE  I.  (bishop  of  Rome),  letter 
on  appeals,  106, 108. 

BONIFACE  III.  (bishop  of  Rome), 
assumes  the  title  '  Universal  bi- 
shop,' 39. 

BONIFACE  VIII.  (bishop  of  Rome), 
trial  respecting  a  Bull  of,  156. 

BRITISH  CHUBCH  (see  Church  of 
England). 

BULLS  (papal),  of  no  force  without 
the  King's  consent,  117;  suits  for 
prohibited,  122;  trial  respecting, 
156, 157 ;  rejected,  166,  167. 

BYZACIUM,  primate  of,  proceedings 
respecting,  85. 


330 


INDEX. 


CAERLEON,  archbp.  of,  independent, 
3(5,  45. 

CANONS  APOSTOLICAL,  quoted,  34,  CO, 
105,  219,  220 ;  question  respect- 
ing, 218,  219. 

CANTERBURY,  archbp.  of,  originally 
not  subject  to  the  pope,  62  ;  him- 
self called  '  pope,'  83,  135. 

CARLISLE,  statute  of,  on  patronage, 
164. 

CARTHAGE,  Council  of,  (see  Council). 

CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  (see  Church). 

CATHOLIC  FAITH,  8,  9. 

CHALCEDON,  bishop  of,  (i.  e.  Richard 
Smith)  10,  etc. 

CHALCEDON,  Council  of,  (see  Coun- 
cil). 

CHARLES  the  Great,  exercised  autho- 
rity in  sacris,  215. 

CHARTA,  MAGNA,  clause  respecting 
appeals,  131 ;  when  left  out,  132  ; 
objections  concerning,  142. 

CHURCH  CATHOLIC,  3,  6,  10,  12,  13, 
14,  15,  17;  Christ  the  'Head'  of 
it,  88 ;  whether  governed  by  an 
earthly  monarch,  246,  et  seqq. 

CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND,  doctrine  of, 
8;  did  not  divide  hi  or  from  the 
Catholic,  17 ;  has  the  same  faith 
as  always,  18;  same  sacraments 
and  discipline,  18 ;  when  founded, 
30 ;  not  hi  the  Roman  patriarchate, 
38,  39;  its  Reformation,  43;  its 
bishops  consecrated  without  the 
pope,  51,  52  ;  sent  bishops  to  Aries 
and  other  synods,  55 ;  what  coun- 
cils it  received,  65 ;  questions  in, 
how  settled,  135  ;  convocations  of, 
145 ;  its  dispensing  power,  155 ; 
patronage  of,  hi  the  King,  160, 
164. 


CHURCH  ORIENTAL,  33,  72,  73;  never 
admitted  the  papal  supremacy, 
237,  238. 

CHURCH  of  ROME,  (see  Roman  Church 
and  Bishop). 

CLARENDON,  constitution  of,  respect- 
ing appeals,  65,  128,  130  ;  renewal 
of,  130 ;  respecting  patronage,  164. 

CkELESTiNE  (bishop  of  Rome),  re- 
specting appeals,  61 ;  letter  to, 
from  the  African  bishops,  109, 110, 
111 ;  respecting  St.  Augustine,  112. 

COKE,  on  different  papal  claims,  133, 
140,  157,  158,  165,  166,  167. 

CONSTANCE,  Council  of,  (see  Coun- 
cil). 

CONSTANTINE,  Donation  of,  a  forgery, 
207. 

CONSTANTINOPLE,  Council  of,  (see 
Council). 

CONVERSION,  plea  of,  for  jurisdiction, 
29  et  seqq. 

CONVOCATIONS,  assembled  by  King's 
writ,  145. 

COUNCIL  of  ANTIOCH,  A.D.  341,  ex- 
cluded appeals,  236. 

—  of  BASLE,  A.  D.  1431,  de- 
clares against  the  pope,  234;  re- 
ceived in  England,  244. 

of  CARTHAGE,  A.D.  419,  on 


appeals,  108. 

of  CHALCEDON,  A.D.  451,  on 

the  equality  of  Rome  and  Constan- 
tinople, 35,  66 ;  on  appeals,  65 ; 
confirms  the  Council  of  Constanti- 
nople respecting  the  privileges  of 
'  New  Rome,'  66  ;  whether  it  offer- 
ed to  the  pope  the  title  '  Universal 
Patriarch,'  97,  98 ;  no  witness  for 
papal  supremacy,  225,  226 ;  objec- 
tions answered,  307 — 311. 


INDEX. 


331 


(  <>i  NCIL  of  CONSTANCE,  A.D.  1414, 
against  papal  supremacy,  233; 
received  in  England,  244. 

of  CONSTANTINOPLE,  A.  D. 

381,  on  the  equality  of  the  Roman 
and  Constantinopolitan  patriarchs, 
6G :  knew  nothing  of  papal  supre- 
macy, 222,  223 ;  objections  an- 
swered, 302,  303. 

of   CONSTANTINOPLE,   A.  D. 


553,  condemned  pope  Vigilius,  229. 
of    CONSTANTINOPLE,   A.  D. 


680,  condemned  pope  Honorius  as 
a  heretic,  230. 

of  CONSTANTINOPLE,    A.  D. 

869,  no  witness  for  papal  supre- 
macy, 231. 

—  of  EPHESUS,  A.D.  431,  for- 
bade additions  to  the  faith,  18 ; 
canon  of,  against  usurpation,  39, 
114;  no  witness  for  papal  supre- 
macy, 223,  224 ;  objections  an- 
swered, 305—307. 

• •  of  FLORENCE,  A.D.  1439, 

referred  to,  237. 

of  MILEVI,  A.  D.   416,   on 

appeals,  60,  61,  105,  107. 

of  NicjEA  or   NICE,    A.  D. 

325,  respecting  patriarchal  sees, 
34 — 36;  occasion  of  the  Canon, 
36 ;  Romish  objections  and  answer, 
36—38;  Canon  on  appeals,  60, 
105  ;  only  twenty  Canons  of,  69 ; 
Arabic  Canons  forged,  68 — 71; 
knew  nothing  of  papal  supremacy, 
220,  221 ;  objections  answered, 
300. 

of  SARDICA,   A.D.  347,  on 

appeals,  63;  no  general  Council, 
64 ;  not  received  in  England,  65 ; 
further  discussion  respecting,  239 
et  seqq. 


COUNCIL  of  TRENT,  its  doctrines,  8  ; 
never  received  here,  243. 

CYPRIAN  (St.),  confirmed  the  bishop 
of  Rome's  consecration,  73;  with 
a  Council,  censures  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  76 ;  on  the  one  episcopate, 
93 ;  his  universal  care,  94 ;  on  the 
equality  of  the  apostles,  254. 

CYPRIAN  PRIVILEGE,  decree  respect- 
ing, 39,  72. 

CYRIL  (patriarch  of  Alexandria)  ex- 
communicated, 92. 

DIONOTH  (abbot  of  Bangor),  his  asser- 
tion of  independence,  45;  objec- 
tions respecting,  48,  50. 

DISCIPLINE,  ancient,  remarks  con- 
cerning, 91,  92. 

DISPENSATIONS,  papal,  not  ancient, 

154 ;  question  repecting,  156 ; 

granted  by  the  English  Church, 
155. 

DUNSTAN,  on  papal  dispensations, 
155. 

EASTERN  CHURCH,  (see  Church  Ori- 
ental). 

EDWARD  (the  Confessor),  styled 
'Vicar  of  Christ,'  103. 

EDWARD  III.,  statutes  of,  against 
appeals,  128,  129,  140. 

ELEUTHERIUS  (bishop  of  Rome)  re- 
ferred to,  30,  31,  32,  103. 

EMPEROR,  exercise  of  power  in  mat- 
ters ecclesiastical,  73,  77,  82,  85, 
102,  212,  214,  215;  instances  of 
power  over  popes,  103,  104,  212, 
213;  last  appealed  to,  134. 

EPHESUS,  Council  of,  (see  Council). 

EXCOMMUNICATION,  its  nature,  91,  92. 


332 


INDEX. 


FATHERS,   primitive,  knew  nothing 

of  papal  supremacy,  297 — 2i)9. 
FELIX  (bishop  of  Rome),  his  name 

expunged  from  the  diptychs,  92. 
FIRST-FRUITS,    history    of,    172,   et 

seqq. 
FLA vi ANUS,  (patriarch  of  Antioch), 

opposed  by  three  Roman  bishops, 

73. 
FLORENCE,  Council  of,  (see  Council). 

GARDINER,  denied  the  pope's  supre- 
macy, 234. 

GEOFFREY  (archbp.  of  York)  forbade 
appeals  to  Rome,  130. 

GOVERNMENT,  a  bond  of  ecclesiastical 
communion,  12. 

GRAVAMINA  ANGLLE,  what,  132. 

GREGORY  I.  (bishop  of  Rome),  ex- 
tracts from  respecting  the  Univer- 
sal Pastorship,  39,  54,  64,  67 ;  his 
respect  for  the  Canons,  83,  86,  87 ; 
on  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  97 ; 
instance  of  his  pretensions,  101 ; 
injunctions  to  Augustine,  116;  re- 
specting the  pall,  168. 

GREGORY  (bishop  of  Ostium),  his 
confession,  141. 

HENRY  I.  (King  of  England),  pro- 
hibition of  appeals,  127 ;  supposed 
law  in  favour  of,  129  ;  his  conduct 
respecting  investitures,  161. 

HENRY  VIII.  (King  of  England), 
what  powers  and  perquisites  he 
denied  the  pope,  118,  122,  153, 
169,  170;  statement  of  the  ques- 
tion between  them,  120,  121. 

HILARY,  (bishop  of  Poictiers)  ana- 
thematizes pope  Liberals,  92 ;  re- 
specting St.  Peter,  252,  255. 


HONORIUS  (bishop  of  Rome)  anathe- 
matized as  a  Monothelite,  92. 
H.  T.  (i.  e.  Henry  Turbervill),  47. 

INFALLIBILITY,  papal,  argument  re- 
specting, 183;  not  proved  by 
Scripture,  185 — 193,  nor  by  tradi- 
tion, 194—200,  nor  by  reason,  201 
—205. 

INNOCENT  III.  (bishop  of  Rome),  his 
complaint  to  Richard  I.,  131. 

INNOCENT  IV.  (bishop  of  Rome),  his 
exactions,  177. 

INVESTITURES,  controversy  respect- 
ing, 160  et  seqq. 

IRENJEUS,  on  the  'principality'  of 
the  Roman  Church,  99,  100. 

JOHN  (King  of  England),  his  grant 
to  the  pope,  209,  210. 

JOHN  (patriarch  of  Constantinople), 
how  censured  by  Gregory,  80,  88. 

JUSTINIAN  (the  emperor),  how  he 
favoured  the  pope,  211,  212 ;  his 
authority  in  sacris,  212 ;  his  sanc- 
tion of  the  Canons,  217. 

JUSTINIANA  PRIMA,  account  of,  214. 

KINGS  of  ENGLAND,  their  authority 
in  sacris,  145  et  seqq. ;  Canons 
confirmed  by  them,  146;  their 
laws  referred  to,  147,  148;  their 
power  neither  by  the  pope's  grant 
nor  permission,  149,  150 ;  their 
authority  in  dispensations,  154, 
155 ;  in  investitures,  160 — 165. 

LEGATES,  papal,  refused  admission 
into  Scotland,  59 ;  had  no  autho- 
rity in  England  without  the  King's 
consent,  117 ;  formal  inquiry  re- 
specting, 134  et  seqq. ;  at  first 
mere  messengers,  140;  rejection  of, 
justified,  141. 


INDEX. 


333 


LEO  I.  (bishop  of  Rome),  his  subjec- 
tion to  the  emperor,  102. 

LIBERIUS  (bishop  of  Rome)  anathe- 
matized as  an  Arian,  92. 

Lucius  (King),  mention  of,  31,  53, 
103. 

MARY  (Queen  of  England),  how  she 
restored  the  papal  usurpation,  123 ; 
her  conduct  respecting  Peto,  143. 

MEI,ETIUS,  his  irregularity,  36. 

MORRIS  (abbot),  case  of,  166, 167. 

NILUS  (archbp.  of  Thessalonica),  on 

the  Nicene  Canon,  37,  38. 
NON-OBSTANTE,  papal,  140, 156. 

OATH,  imposed  by  the  pope,  162; 
how  enlarged,  163. 

PALL,  from  Rome,  not  essential,  168. 

PALLADIUS,  his  mission,  53. 

PASCHALIS  I.  (bishop  of  Rome),  the 
oath  devised  by  him,  127,  161 ;  his 
complaint  respecting  appeals,  129; 
his  conduct  respecting  investitures, 
161. 

PATRIARCHS,  their  number,  35 ;  pre- 
sence necessary  to  a  General  Coun- 
cil, 64 ;  their  confirmation,  72 ; 
deposition,  74 ;  restoration,  75  ;  all 
alike  called  *  oecumenical  bishops,' 
97 ;  no  appeal  from,  105. 

PELAGIUS  II.  (bishop  of  Rome),  his 
testimony  against  the  papal  usurp- 
ation, 78. 

PETER  (St.),  how  called  '  chief  of  the 
apostles,'  82 ;  '  first  member  of  the 
Church,'  89;  whether  he  was  a 
monarch,  252  et  seqq. ;  had  a  per- 
sonal preeminence,  252,  271 ;  sense 
of  Matt.  xvi.  18,  respecting,  255; 


distinctions  as  to  his  power,  257 ; 
and  titles  of  honour,  258 ;  sense  of 
John  xxi.  14,  and  other  texts  re- 
specting, 262—268;  whether  his 
preeminence  was  inherited  by  the 
popes,  270—280. 

PETER- PENCE,  history  of,  170  et  seqq. 

PETO  (Cardinal),  not  admitted  by 
Queen  Mary,  143. 

POPE,  (see  Roman  Bishop). 

PR^MUNIRE,  penalty  of,  133,  151, 
167. 

PROVISORS,  statute  of,  140, 151, 165, 
164. 

R.  C.  (see  Chalcedon,  bishop  of). 

RECUSANTS  (Romish),  schismatical, 
11,  314—318. 

REFORMATION  (English),  how  con- 
ducted, 43 ;  what  powers  then 
denied  the  pope,  118. 

RICHARD  I.,  his  conduct  respecting 
appeals,  130,  131. 

ROMAN  CHURCH,  a  true  Church,  4, 
5,  6,  16 ;  particular,  7,  16 ;  obe- 
dience denied  to,  13;  how  it  dis- 
turbs the  Church  Universal,  13, 
14,  22,  23 ;  how  far  we  communi- 
cate with,  16 ;  has  made  additions 
to  the  faith,  18;  charge  laid 
against,  23 ;  several  pretensions  to 
power  over  us,  26 ;  how  inconsist- 
ent, 26,  27,  40 ;  when  founded,430 ; 
how  called  '  head  of  all  Churches,' 
83,  84 ;  whence  it  derived  its  great- 
ness, 98,  99 ;  usurpations  of,  not 
sanctioned  by  imperial  law,  104 ; 
divisions  within  its  communion, 
198,  204. 

ROMAN  BISHOP,  became  the  Western 
patriarch  by  degrees,  34,  35;  his 
jurisdiction  limited,  35 ;  exercised 


334 


INDEX. 


no  authority  here  for  600  years, 
44,  112;  took  oath  to  obey   the 
Canons,  61 ;  which  deny  his  pre- 
tensions, CO  et  seqq. ;  in  like  man- 
ner, practice  against  him,  71   et 
seqq.;  what  meant  by  his  confir- 
mation  of  elections,  73 ;  had   no 
power  to   depose  patriarchs,  74; 
nor  to  restore,  75 ;  usurpations  of, 
unknown  to  ancient  popes,  78  et 
seqq. ;  in  what  extreme  cases  ap- 
pealed to,  86,  101 ;  his  submission 
to  the  emperor,  102 ;  instances  of 
severity  exercised  upon,  103,  104, 
212,  213;  modern  powers  of,  not 
sanctioned  by  imperial  law,  104  et 
seqq.  ;  appeals  to,  denied  by  Afri- 
can Canons,  107;  had  no  posses- 
sion of  our  obedience  in  Austin's 
time,  115 ;  his  claims  at  the  period 
of  the  Reformation,  118;  ancient 
applications  to,  what  they  signified, 
135;  had  no  legislative  power  in 
England,    144;     no    dispensatory 
power,  152,  156,   158;   exactions 
of,  resisted,  173 — 178 ;  infallibility 
of,   disproved,   183  et  seqq. ;  not 
universally    held    by    Romanists, 
198 ;  supremacy  of,  not  granted  by 
the  emperor,    207 — 215,    nor  by 
ecclesiastical  Canons,  217  et  seqq.  ; 
whether  successor    of    St.  Peter, 
269  et  seqq. ;   monarchy   of,  not 
recognized  in  the  Councils,  290; 
his  schism  and  perjury,  293,  294. 

ROMANISTS  (Anglo),  schismatics,  11, 
314—318. 

RUFFINUS,  his  version  of  the  sixth 
Nicene  Canon,  38 ;  on  the  number 
of  Canons,  69. 


SALON A  (bishop  of),  how  excommu- 
nicated, 85. 

SARDICA,  Council  of,  (see  Council). 

SCHISM,  definition  of,  3 ;  act  of,  3  ; 
subject  of,  4;  condition  of,  14; 
application  of,  not  to  our  Church, 
17;  to  the  Romanists,  22,23,  318. 

S.  W.  (i.e.  William  Sergeant),  15, 
et  alib. 

T.  C.  (i.  e.  Thomas  Car\vell),  71,  et 

alib. 
TELAUS  (St.)  consecrated  bishops,  &c. 

without  papal  delegation,  51. 
THEODORE  (archbp.  of  Canterbury), 

his    behaviour    towards     Wilfrid, 

57,  58. 
TRADITION,    concessions    respecting, 

194,  195. 

UNIVERSAL  BISHOP,  title  assumed  by 
Boniface  III.,  39 ;  ancient  use  of, 
in  other  dioceses,  39,  96 ;  discarded 
by  Pelagius  II.,  78;  by  Gregory 
the  Great,  79 — 90 ;  distinctions  re- 
specting, 87—90,  95,  96,  288. 

VICTOR  (bishop  of  Rome)  excommu- 
nicates the  Asian  Churches,  90, 
91. 

VIGILIUS  (bishop  of  Rome)  excom- 
municated, 92. 

WILFRID,  his  appeals  to  Rome,  56, 
57,  76. 

ZOSIMUS  (bishop  of  Rome),  his  con- 
duct respecting  the  Nicene  Canon, 
70,  241 ;  letter  to,  from  the  African 
bishops,  108.] 


THE    END. 


Works  just  Published  or  in  the  course  of  Pub- 
lication, by  J.  4-  J.  J.  Deighton. 


Five  Sermons  Preached  before  the  University  of 

Cambridge.  The  First  Four  in  November,  1845.  The  Fifth  on  the 
General  Fast- Day,  Wednesday,  March  24th,  1847.  By  the  Rev. 
J.  J.  BLUNT,  B.  D.,  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity.  8vo.  5*.  6d. 

Analysis  of  the  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  written 

by  the  Right  Rev.  Father  in  God,  JOHN  PEARSON,  D.  D.,  late  Lord 
Bishop  of  Chester.  Third  Edition,  revised  and  corrected  by  W.  H. 
MILL,  D.  D.,  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge ;  and  Chap- 
lain to  his  Grace  the  Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  8vo.  cloth,  5*. 

A  Discourse  on   the  Studies'  of  the  University 

of  Cambridge,  by  ADAM  SEDGWICK,  M.A.,  Woodwardian  Professor 
and  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  Fifth  Edition,  with 
Additional  Matter.  Post  8vo.  Nearly  Ready, 

Bishop  Pearson's  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  cor- 
rected throughout,  and  many  References  supplied.  Edited  for  the 
Syndics  of  the  Cambridge  University  Press,  by  TEMPLE  CHEVALLIER, 
B.  D.  Professor  of  Mathematics  in  the  University  of  Durham,  and 
late  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  St.  .Catharine's  Hall,  Cambridge.  8vo. 
Nearly  Ready. 

The  Homilies,  with  Various  Readings,  and  the 

Quotations  from  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  given  at  length,  in  the 
Original  Languages.  Edited  for  the  Syndics  of  the  Cambridge  Univer- 
sity Press,  by  G.  E.  CORRIE,  B.D.  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  St.  Catharine's 
Hall ;  Norrisian  Professor  of  Divinity  in  that  University,  and  Exa- 
mining Chaplain  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely.  8vo.  In  the  Press. 


AL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000116248     6